The URL can be used to link to this page

Fire Lane Study - 2019#9D MEETING TYPE Regular Meeting City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Title I Subject: Receive Fire Lane Recommendations from the Park and Planning Commissions Meeting Date: April 12, 2021 Prepared by: Marie Darling, Planning Director Attachments: Minutes from the Joint Meetings, Sept. 1, 2020 and Jan. 12, 2021 Zoning Map Section 1201.03 Subd. 19 Section 611 — Snowmobile Regulations Correspondence Received Regarding Fire Lanes Background: After having toured each fire lane last fall, the Planning and Park Commissions met jointly and separately at several meetings to discuss the appropriate uses for each fire lane This memo provides a summary of their recommendations from the September 1, 2020 and January 12, 2021 joint meetings. General Recommendations: Signage: The Commissioners concluded that having signage to allow the public to know where the fire lanes are and what they may be used for is very important. They recommend that signage be placed on each of the fire lanes. They envisioned small markers at the property lines, rather than large park signs. Name Change: The Commissioners discussed the appropriateness of the name. As the fire lanes are access to the lake, they recommend that the fire lanes be renamed to "Shorewood Public Lake Access" or something similar, if legally permitted. They further recommended that the fire lanes be added to the City's parks and trails maps. Not all the fire lanes are recommended to remain fire lanes, so the name change and addition to the map could be applied on a case -by -case basis. Staff contacted the City Attorney and he indicated that there were no limitations on how the City Council decides to refer to the fire lanes. Maintenance: The Commissioners discussed the ability to access the lake on each of the existing fire lanes and concluded several need maintenance in order to function for their specified purpose. Public Works Director Larry Brown requested an estimate from one firm that indicated they could clear a 10-foot, wide pedestrian path on each of the 10 fire lanes for $25,300 total. That estimate is for all 10, although some of the fire lanes would need more work than others. Spraying for noxious weeds would cost $300-500 per fire lane per treatment, although not all the Fire Lanes need spraying. They also discussed needing some trash pickup at Fire Lane 6. Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. 5 \PI—iq1%Pla—,,g filesj5ppl¢artins\202C C—\fire L—f CAF 2: CA 12 d— Joint Meetings: The Commissioners recommended that they meet in one year to discuss progress on this topic. They would also like to meet jointly on an annual basis to discuss common issues. Private Property: The Commissioners recommend that all personal property that has been placed on all the fire lanes be removed. They specifically mentioned this issue for Fire Lanes 1, 3, 4, and 10 noting instances of structures and other private property on the fire lanes. Specific Recommendations: Fire Lane 1: The Commissioners recommended that the City Council continue this Fire Lane as a Class 1 Fire Lane, define the property line with the Upper Lake Minnetonka Yacht Club, maintain the fire lane and provide signage. In the future, the Commissioners thought the City Council may want to add one or two parking spaces to improve access to this Fire Lane. If those changes were implemented in the future, ordinance amendments would be required. Fire Lane 2: The Commissioners recommended that the City Council reconsider the classification of Fire Lane 2 and consider designating it as a service road. Based on the decision on the classification of the use, they recommend that signage be placed on the property clarifying the use of the area. Such an action would require both code and map amendments. Fire Lane 3: The Commissioners recommended that the City Council consider changing the classification from Class 1 to Class 2 to allow snowmobiles access to Lake Minnetonka (but not other motorized vehicles or parking) if the adjacent property owners are amendable. The vote on this recommendation was 8 in favor and 2 opposed. They also discussed adding fishing as a Class 2 use at this location, as fishing isn't allowed in a Class 2 Fire Lane. The Commissioners also recommended adding signage, with hours of operation, clarifying the boundaries. This change would require an ordinance amendment. Fire Lane 4: The Commissioners recommended no changes to the allowed uses for Fire Lane 4. They recommended adding signage with hours of operation to define the boundaries and to maintain the fire lane. Fire Lane 5: The Commissioners recommended no change to the allowed uses for Fire Lane 5. They recommended adding signage, with hours of operation, clarifying the boundaries and maintaining the fire lane adequately for pedestrian access to the bluff. They further recommended adding a warning sign near the bluff area. Fire Lane 6: The Commissioners recommended no changes to the allowed uses for Fire Lane 6. They recommended adding signage with hours of operation and coordinating snowmobile access with Tonka Bay. They further recommended that the area be maintained and cleaned more frequently, especially for trash pickup, because of its proximity to Crescent Beach. After the meeting, staff contacted the City of Tonka Bay. Their staff indicated that no snowmobile access to Lake Minnetonka is permitted on their side of the Fire Lane (the majority of Crescent Beach and the entire parking area). Because the Shorewood side of the fire lane is a hedgerow and overgrown drainage ditch, snowmobile access is compromised. Staff offers the following options for this fire lane: 1. Clear the Shorewood Fire Lane of vegetation so that snowmobile access is possible; 2. Remove snowmobile access as an allowed use (which would require an ordinance amendment); or 3. Make no changes. Fire Lane 7: As this is the Fire Lane with the best access to Lake William, the Commissioners recommended that this Fire Lane be continued with no change to the allowed uses, but with added signage to clarify the boundaries. Fire Lanes 8-10: At their September joint meeting, the Commissioners had recommended that fire lanes 8-10 be vacated and not used for public access. At their January joint meeting, staff presented the details of what it takes to vacate public property and the difficulty getting DNR support for a vacation. In order to vacate the fire lanes, the City would have to show that the fire lanes could never provide public benefit now or in the future. Additionally, staff presented the Fire Chiefs desire to use all the fire lanes for lake access, even if the access would be only to provide visual access out to the lake or for launching drones to direct emergency service providers. Consequently, the Commissioners altered their recommendation at the January meeting. As an alternative to vacation, the Commissioners suggested that Fire Lanes 8-10 could be removed from the ordinance and map as fire lanes and left as either unmaintained rights -of - way, or a new category of fire lane could be created to allow them to have some maintenance, but not to the same level as the other fire lanes. Staff noted that removing the Fire Lane designation from Fire Lanes 8-10 would change the setbacks for neighboring homes. The minimum setback from a Fire Lane is 10 feet; the minimum setback from a public right-of-way is 30 feet in the R-1 D zoning district. (All the properties around Lake William are zoned R-1 D.) All the homes built closer than 30 feet to the unclassified rights -of -way would be considered legally non -conforming. Removing fire lane designation on 8-10 would also require code and map amendments. Financial or Budget Considerations: The cost to provide an initial pedestrian access way on the fire lanes would be $23,500, plus noxious weed spraying. The cost to purchase signage and install them has not yet been determined. Any on -going maintenance will increase the duties of the public works crews. Options/Next Steps: The options and next steps are dependent on the City Council direction, but could include any, all, or none of the following: • prepare code amendments and provide notice as required by the zoning regulations • notify property owners to remove private property from the fire lanes • order signs for the fire lanes and install them • hire contractors to clear access paths to the shore on the fire lanes (or in the case of Fire Lane 5 to the top of the bluff) and spray for noxious weeds where needed • draft a maintenance policy to agree upon the level of on -going maintenance that would be provided CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS JOINT PLANNING AND PARK COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 2020 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CONVENE JOINT PLANNING AND PARK COMMISSION WORK SESSION MEETING Chair Maddy and Chair Mangold called the meeting to order at 7:07 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Planning Chair Maddy; Commissioners Gault (arrived at 7:20 p.m.) Gorham, Eggenberger, and Riedel; Park Commissioners Mangold, Hirner, Gallivan; Planning Director Darling; Councilmember Johnson and Councilmember Siakel; Communications Director Moore Absent: Park Commissioner Schmid APPROVAL OF AGENDA Riedel moved, Mangold seconded, approving the Joint Planning and Park Commission agenda, as presented. Roll Call Vote: Ayes — all. Motion passed 710 1. FIRE LANE DISCUSSION Planning Director Darling stated that both Commissions have been able to tour the fire lanes. She explained that now the task is to ask the following questions: How well does each fire lane serve the public as a lake access?; Are the uses that are currently allowed appropriate in each of the fire lanes?; Are there other uses that are currently not permitted that could be approved based on the characteristics of each fire lane?; Should improvements be completed to allow the site to serve as public lake access more effectively? She reviewed the currently allowed uses for Class 1, Class 2 and Class 3 fire lanes. She stated that she received 2 letters after the packet was sent out to the Commissioners, so she has sent those along separately. Planning Commissioner Eggenberger asked what would happen to a fire lane if the City decides to close it. Planning Director Darling stated that would depend on whether the City would decide to put up barriers, have zero maintenance so it would be natural vegetation, or if they would like to vacate the fire lanes. Planning Commissioner Eggenberger asked if a fire lane was vacated whether it simply becomes part of the adjoining property. Planning Director Darling explained that it would depend on how the City originally acquired the land. She stated that this may mean that the property may not be split evenly between the two adjacent properties. She stated that if the land is platted, that would be an entirely different situation and noted that she knows that there is one that is in an easement which has utilities in that location. The Commissions decided to discuss each fire lane individually. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING CONLMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 1, 2020 Page 2 of 23 Planning Director Darling reviewed the location of Fire Lane 1. Planning Commissioner Gorham stated that the City is technically responsible for maintaining the fire lanes and asked what the City currently does regarding maintenance. Planning Director Darling stated that there is not much that the City has been tasked to do and noted that they are not on mowing schedules. She explained that if a tree dies or falls and a property owner asks the City to remove it that is about the extent of what the City has done. Planning Commission Chair Maddy stated that this fire lane seems to be the most challenging one because the neighbor appears to have commandeered a good portion of this public property. He stated that he believes someone was even storing a boat lift on this property. Planning Director Darling stated that there was a boat lift on the fire lane which was part of the correspondence that was sent out earlier. She explained that the City had asked the property owner to remove their private, transportable private property and cut off their irrigation system at the property line, which they have done. She stated that now staff is waiting for more direction from the Planning and Park Commissions before they have them complete any additional work. Planning Commissioner Gault asked how all the rip rap was put in along the shoreland without the City being made aware of it or having any permit pulled. Planning Director Darling stated that the City has not gone any further with enforcement until staff knows the outcome of the discussions by the two Commissions. Planning Commissioner Riedel noted that he was at the property earlier today and the boat lift was still located on the fire lane. Planning Director Darling stated that she was unsure if there were any others in the area, but knows that the one that the City sent notice to has been removed. Chair Maddy stated that the City has received substantial correspondence from the Yacht Club about how they wish to take care of that property. He asked if the City had gotten any input from the home at 4595, which has commandeered a good chunk of public property. Planning Director Darling stated that they had sent in the letter that she e-mailed to the Commissioners earlier today and noted that they have complied with what the City has asked them to do. She stated that they are waiting to see if there will be more required of them based on the outcome of tonight's meeting. Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that his biggest issue with this fire lane is its remoteness. He stated that if the City will convert it into access and maintain it, he is concerned about how much it would actually be used. Planning Director Darling stated that the Yacht Club has indicated that there are quite a few people who are interested in launching kayaks through the fire lane. She stated that if the City would put in a parking space or two along the fire lane, it could be a more popular attraction for kayakers and canoes. She stated that the Yacht Club is already allowing some people from the public to launch from their property and that activity could be shifted to the fire lane. She stated that it appears that there is demand for small vessels. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 1, 2020 Page 3 of 23 Councilmember Siakel asked how Planning Director Darling knows that there is demand. Planning Director Darling stated that at this point, she can only pass along what she has been told by the Board of Directors at the Upper Lake Minnetonka Yacht Club. Planning Commissioner Gault stated that it appears that the Yacht Club is also willing to maintain the property. Scott Brown stated that he lives in the neighborhood near this fire lane. He stated that he is a former Commodore of the Yacht Club and is the only one who lives in the east side of the road. He stated that when he served as the Commodore about 20 years ago, the fire lane was abandoned swamp land. He stated that while he served as Commodore, they cleaned up a lot of the lake shore and pulled out materials, but this was not associated with the fire lane. He stated that if the Yacht Club is allowing people to launch across their property, it is in violation of the CUP and noted that there is no parking on this street. He stated he cannot imagine a concept that says that there is demand for lake access out in this area because they are just a remote, small street. He stated that he does not think storage for kayaks or canoes would be allowed in this location either. He stated he is also an avid cross-country skier and he cannot fathom somebody using a lake access to get onto the lake to cross country ski and doesn't understand why this was included as a use. Planning Director Darling explained that cross country skiing is a listed use for this classification of fire lane which is listed within the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Brown stated that he just doesn't feel that the end of this street is a good place to have a public access. Mike and Siggit Rosenberg, 4595 Enchanted Point, stated that they have not commandeered the property. He explained that they purchased it in 2003, and the grass, sod, irrigation system as well as the landscaping were all in the fire lane at the time when they purchased the property and was done prior to their ownership. He stated that the rip rap that was there was mostly existing, but noted that they did extend a small portion of it. He stated that they are small boulders that can be carried and were just there to help with the erosion and flooding which have helped. He stated that he feels that they have always respected that property as fire lane and are not trying to misrepresent anything and want to fully cooperate with the City. He explained that the lift that is currently on the property is not their lift and explained that he thinks it belongs to the Yacht Club. He agreed with the there is a boat lift in the fire lane, but reiterated that it is not their boat lift. Mr. Brown stated that the flooding in the area a few years ago was caused because the Yacht Club dredged the land and their contractor cut a swath to the lake and lowered the shoreline which meant the whole neighborhood flooded when the lake went up. He stated that he built a dam to stop the water and the City came out and he pointed out to the Mayor who also came out to tour the area that the Yacht Club was illegally storing their boat lifts on the fire lane property. He stated that he can see the boat lifts that the Yacht Club has collected just looking from his property to theirs. Planning Commission Chair Maddy stated that the City is not trying to point fingers at anybody for wrongdoing, but is trying to clean up this situation. Ms. Rosenberg stated that she also agreed with Mr. Brown that this is a quiet residential neighborhood and they would not want to see this area turned into a storage area for personal CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 1, 2020 Page 4 of 23 watercraft, such as wave runners or jet skis. She stated that this would totally change the residential neighborhood and expand the commercial use of that land. She stated that it would change something that is called Enchanted Island into something that is not so enchanted. Planning Commission Chair Maddy noted that the ordinance would not allow for motorized vehicles so it would just be kayaks and canoes. Planning Director Darling agreed and clarified that there may be things like a kayak or paddleboard, but nothing like a jet ski. Mr. Brown stated that there is also zero parking in the area. He noted that they cannot park on the street because the streets are so narrow. Mr. Rosenberg agreed that there is absolutely no place to park. He stated that due to COVID-19 they have actually used the property more than they have in several years. He noted that the property is currently for sale, but they may decide to keep it and move out there permanently. Planning Commissioner Gault stated that he would like to know from the current Commodore whether the people that are launching canoes and kayaks are residents that do not have direct lake access from the west side of the island. He stated that he agrees that he cannot imagine people are driving out there to do that. Mr. Brown stated that the CUP states that no one is to be there unless they are a member or accompanied by a member. He stated that this is a major point of contention because it is violated literally every day. Planning Commissioner Gault stated that he would like to know if the people that are launching from the Yacht Club are the same ones that would launch from the fire lane if it is all cleaned up and made accessible. Mr. Brown stated that he thinks it is fictitious because if someone is using the Yacht Club to launch a kayak it is illegal and shouldn't be happening. He stated that he does not think there are actually people launching their kayaks from the Yacht Club. Councilmember Siakel asked if the neighbors have any knowledge of anyone using the fire lane for launching any canoes or kayaks. She asked if this was a moot point because it has not been used that way. Mr. Rosenberg stated that since 2003 when they purchased the property, no one has come down to use the fire lane. Planning Commissioner Eggenberger asked where people would park if they were launching the watercraft from either the fire lane or the Yacht Club. Park Commission Chair Mangold stated that if this was a public use and it is being discussed in the same context at parks, they would think about what they put in the park and whether or not the City has the capacity for parking and traffic flow for that use. He stated that if there is not enough traffic flow, they are limited to how many ball fields or playgrounds they have. He stated that if there isn't parking, it is not able to be public access. He stated that he does not think there is a way to create parking in this location that would be a viable option. Councilmember Siakel stated that she thinks that is a commonality to all of the fire lanes CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 1, 2020 Page 5 of 23 Planning Commission Chair Maddy stated that this is one of the City's larger fire lanes. Planning Commissioner Gault stated that he thinks of it as an access factor where people who live within close proximity to the fire lane could use it on a regular basis. Mr. Brown stated that he is familiar with using fire lanes because he races ice boats and they use the fire lanes on the lower lake side, but the difference between that fire lane and this fire lane is the other one is a black topped, curbed road and this is technically a dirt road with no parking allowed. Park Commissioner Hirner asked whether it would be an option for the City to work with the Yacht Club to change their permit and allow the launching of personal watercrafts and if so, whether the City needs to retain the fire lane. Planning Director Darling explained that the Yacht Club is private property and not public property. She stated that just because one membership board may allow public access, it does not mean any future boards would also allow that use. She stated that if the City is interested in adding use such as a storage rack for canoes in the area, then she thinks the City could look at how to add parking in the area. She stated that there may be some good ground suitable for this purpose. Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that he doesn't understand why people would use this fire lane. He stated that he doesn't want to put the onus on the City or the residents to have to maintain them. He stated that to him, the question is, if the City were to no longer designate them as fire lanes, what would be done with them. He reiterated that he does not think this is a location that people will use. Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that he agreed with Park Commissioner Gallivan that the City should look at the option of closing fire lane #1. Mr. Rosenberg stated that they would be interested in talking to the City if there is any possibility of a lease or purchase of that property. Park Commission Chair Mangold suggested that the discussion move on to the other fire lanes in the City because he doesn't want them all to be lumped in together. Planning Commissioner Riedel stated that he feels fire lane #1 is different than the other fire lanes because there is potential here for some development, but he is going to echo what the other Commissioners have said that he doubts that the public will use this location. He stated that he drove out there earlier today and it took him 45 minutes to get there. He stated that he agrees that there is the potential for parking and another use, but feels it would be very minimally used by the public. Planning Commission Chair Maddy stated that there is enough room for a few parking spots and a place to store a few kayaks, but asked if it was the consensus that there would not be any demand for this and would ultimately be a waste of the City's resources. Planning Commissioner Gorham stated that part of his concern is the perception and making too many assumptions on how it is being used now versus how it may be used in the future. He stated that he has concerns about the perception of turning over public property for private use to wealthier shoreland owners while restricting lake access to people who are more inland. He CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 1, 2020 Page 6 of 23 stated that he would rather keep most of the fire lanes as they are rather than turning some of the property over because lake access is pretty precious. Planning Commission Chair Maddy stated that he agrees and would rather the City send the maintenance crew there a few times a month to keep it clean than consider conveying it to different property owners and disallowing the public use of the space. Planning Commissioner Gorham stated that he doesn't want people to look back and say that in 2020, people weren't using it, so we gave the people next door the right to it. He stated that he doesn't think the City is going bankrupt by maintaining it. Park Commissioner Hirner stated that his concerns are for the property owners on the island that do not have lake access and if this goes away, where can they go to get access to the lake. Mr. Brown stated that there is the Shady Island bridge area that has about five times better access to the water than this fire lane. He stated that to his knowledge, the fire lane has not been used in the 25 years he has lived in his home. He stated that this would not be "taking anything away" from people because it is not walkable. Planning Commissioner Riedel stated that he walked out there today and feels it is walkable. Mr. Brown noted that it is walkable right now because the Yacht Club went out with chainsaws last winter and cut down trees. He reiterated that he has never seen someone walk through that property to the water. Planning Commissioner Gault stated that when he was out touring this fire lane, there was a family that walked up behind him that had been fishing. He stated that he feels it is at least getting limited use. Mr. Brown expressed his surprise because he has not seen anyone walking on this fire lane. Mr. Rosenberg stated that they had recently gone fishing, so it may have been them. He concurred with Mr. Brown that they have also never seen anybody come down the fire lane or ask about going through there. Planning Commissioner Gault asked whether there would be better lake access for the community from the J.E. Memorial Park_ Planning Director Darling stated that she doesn't have information on that because it is not in the City of Shorewood. Councilmember Siakel stated that she would like to caution the group regarding their tone in talking about wealthy lake owners and turning this into an elitist conversation. She stated that many of people along the fire lanes have lived in their homes for a long time and do not have wads of cash falling out of their pockets. She stated that the discussion at tonight's meeting should be on the current use of the fire lanes and should not just be about expanding the use of them. She noted that many of the fire lanes are inaccessible and have not been maintained by the City, nor is there a budget for the City to maintain them. She stated that she thinks the City should be talking about the current use and whether it is reasonable to maintain it. She stated that based on these questions the group should consider abandoning the fire lane or changing the classifications. She stated that it should not just be about expanding the use and should look at the entirety and also look at the purpose of the fire lanes in the first place, which was to fight CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 1, 2020 Page 7 of 23 fires. She stated that the City has not used a fire lane in about 100 years for this purpose. She stated that the fire lanes were not designed to create access for people to use the lake. Mr. Brown stated that his home was one of 3 properties affected when Michael Catain moved a dry hydrant and built his home. He stated that when they asked the City about it, they were told they didn't have to worry because the City had abandoned the dry hydrants, because they use the fire lanes. He stated that he is amazed to hear that the City does not use the fire lanes. He reiterated that this fire lane does not get used and he would describe it as abandoned property. Planning Director Darling stated that in 1985 and 1986, the fire lanes were studied exhaustively and at that time it was determined that there was no practical use of them for fire fighting purposes and the only use for them was for public lake access. Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that he feels the City needs to take responsibility for the fire lanes that will be retained. He stated that he feels that there needs to be certainty about whether they are going to be access points or not and then the City needs to take responsibility with regard to maintenance. Planning Commission Chair Maddy suggested moving the discussion along to the other fire lanes. He asked if there was anyone else from the public that would like to specifically comment on fire lane #1 before the discussion moves on. There being no public comment, the group moved onto fire lane #2. Planning Director Darling gave an overview of the location of fire lane #2. She noted that there is a lift station near the shoreline and one parking space. Planning Commissioner Riedel stated that it appeared as though there was irrigation piping from the adjacent lot running across the fire lane as well as wire put in place to deter geese across the fire lane. Planning Director Darling noted that she had seen similar geese barriers at other fire lanes throughout the City. Planning Commissioner Riedel stated that he feels this deters the use for public access because it is an obstruction. Planning Commission Chair Maddy stated that he feels this kind of thing can be expected because the City has not been maintaining them. He stated that this is a beautiful piece of the lake and asked if there were residents that did not have lake access that used this fire lane. Park Commissioner Hirner stated that he spoke with a resident who lives up the hill and the feedback he gave was that the status quo works for everyone that is there. Planning Commission Chair Maddy stated that it was awkward when he went to tour because he had to park in the middle of the island and walk down because the road is so narrow. Planning Commissioner Gault stated that he believes the City needs to retain public access in order to get to the lift station. Park Commissioner Chair Mangold stated that this fire lane provides a simpler picture of what is going on because it is not a piece of land that can be used in any other way than its current use. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 1, 2020 Page 8 of 23 Planning Commission Chair Maddy asked if the City could install a sign that explains what is allowed, such as non -motorized vehicles. Planning Commissioner Eggenberger asked if it should be re-classified as a service road. Planning Commission Chair Maddy asked if anyone from the public would like to speak specifically regarding fire lane #2. There being no comments, he suggested moving on to fire lane #3 which was the fire lane that the City received the most correspondence about. Planning Commissioner Gault stated that he stopped by this fire lane today. He stated that in looking at where the boundary stake was located, it appeared as though the stakes had been pulled by the neighbor to the west. He stated that there appears to be significant encroachment. He stated that this fire lane gets a lot of use and he has gotten feedback from numerous residents that they do not want to see this use changed. Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that technically, this fire lane is a Class 1, but what they have heard from many residents is that it is used as a Class 2. He stated that he thinks the discussion should be on whether it should be changed to a Class 2 and the City needs to be able to step in and create certainty for the residents. He stated that currently there appears to be some conflicts about the use and it has essentially been left up to residents to enforce it. Planning Commission Chair Maddy stated that our law says that you cannot have motorized vehicles, but it sounds like that has been used. He noted that the City did put up barriers last year and noted that the property owner at 26260 bought it after being told that there were no motorized vehicles allowed on the fire lane. He stated that the City had not enforced this until last year and now there are a lot of neighbors inland who want to use it for their snow machines. Park Commission Chair Mangold noted that the parking at this fire lane is drastically different than the parking situation on the island. Councilmember Siakel stated that there is parking available but this is a dangerous corner. Park Commission Chair Mangold stated that he understood that and wasn't implying that they should park on the corner, but it is significantly closer to walk to than there is on the island. Planning Commissioner Gault stated that the people he was speaking with earlier today live on Eureka and use the fire lane a lot to walk down to the lake. He reiterated that the neighbors he spoke with support the continued use of the fire lane and allowing snowmobile and AN access, with some limitation on hours. Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that he feels there clearly needs to be better signage around this one and there should also be some clarity on the hours of use. He stated that he believes there should be access somewhere for people to use snowmobiles to get on the lake, but he hesitates because if a property owner bought this with the understanding that it was zoned as one thing and then the rules change, that gives him concern. Jillian Blomquist, 5425 Birch Bluff Road, stated that one thing she wanted to bring up, even in relation to the first two fire lanes, is the presumption that people are driving from far away places or other neighborhoods and parking their cars to use the fire lane access. She stated that she believes that is a misnomer or a misunderstanding of the use because the people in the neighborhood are walking from their houses miles in order to use the lake access in both the summer and winter months. She stated that they have lived in this home for 7 years and there CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 1, 2020 Page 9 of 23 were snowmobiles going up and down Grant Lorenz all winter long up until this last winter. She stated that it is really not people coming from other places and parking, so the idea that there needs to be parking for the fire lanes to be useful is a misunderstanding. She stated that this access has always been used for snowmobiles, but she understands the adjacent homeowner bought this with a different understanding. She stated that she has spoken with neighbors who have lived on Oak Ridge Circle for thirty years and they say there have been snowmobiles going down that fire lane for the whole thirty years. She stated that she agrees that signage limiting the operation hours or even limiting it to weekends would be a good compromise. Sarah Fisher -Johnson, 26165 Birch Bluff Road, stated that she lives on the south side of Birch Bluff and she was told when she purchased her house and researched the Class 1 and Class 2 designations. She stated that the barriers that were installed last year limited her being able to pull her niece in a sled and even her walking her dog with her snowshoes. She agrees that the usage needs some clarity and noted that there are some neighbors that do not have a fire hydrant near so it is terrifying to her to not actually have access to the lake. Planning Commissioner Chair Maddy stated that he wanted to be clear that the fire lanes are never used to fight fires. Planning Commissioner Gault noted that when he was out in this area speaking with residents they were standing under a pole, and it appears that the property owner at 26310 has installed permanent fixtures within the fire lane right-of-way. He stated that it includes video surveillance cameras and permanent snow fencing. He stated that when he saw the survey marker last Saturday, he thought he was looking at a 10 foot fire lane and then he received the most recent paperwork, and saw this was a 25 foot fire lane, which was why he went back again this evening to take another look. He stated that the survey stakes have been pulled he believes to obfuscate the nature of the fire lane. He stated that he would like to have it resurveyed and know whether or not the City needs to be talking to the resident about removing their permanent fixtures and landscaping. Mark Bongard, 26260 Birch Bluff Road, stated that he had removed the stakes, but the hard stakes are still in the ground. He stated that there were some storms and winds and a few of them fell down, so he just pulled the remaining that were standing. He stated that the marker stakes are still in the ground with pink ribbons on them, so the boundary can still be identified. He stated that he wasn't trying to cause harm. Planning Commissioner Gault stated that they were not there at 6:30 p.m. this evening. He noted that he appreciated that Mr. Bongard has been maintaining the fire lane and mowing it. Mr. Bongard stated that their biggest issue with this situation is that would like the rules that they were told when they purchased the home to be in play. He stated that the use of the fire lane for pedestrian use, kayaks, canoes, paddleboards, and people fishing is fine. He stated that the only issue they have is the winter time usage with motorized vehicles. He stated that he doesn't agree with the people that are saying that his is the way it has always been done because that begs the question whether they are okay with breaking the law for 30 years. He stated that just because it has been done doesn't mean it is okay. He stated that the fire lane is wide enough and flat enough that people been driving through with fish houses and noted that this activity happens at all hours of the night. He reiterated that they purchased the home with the understanding that there would be pedestrian use along this fire lane. He stated that all of their bedrooms are on the side of the home near the fire lane and the snowmobiles are not quiet especially when they come through in large groups. He stated that if there was a way to control it, perhaps a 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. rule or daylight hours rule or something similar, he doesn't think he would be opposed to it as long as it CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 1, 2020 Page 10 of 23 is enforceable. He stated that last year when the barriers came up, it cut down on the snowmobile traffic but pedestrian traffic just cut around them and trespassed on his property in order to get back on the fire lane. He reiterated that he would prefer it remain pedestrian only, but would ask that regardless of what the City decides that it is something that is actually enforceable. Park Commission Chair Mangold stated that he feels there is no question that this fire lane is getting used by the public. Dave Garske, stated that he lives about a mile away from this fire lane on Smithtown near Freeman Park. He stated that he has lived in the area for about two years and runs quite a bit in this area and never realized that this was a public access point to the lake. He stated that he doesn't think there is any signage that indicates this is public access. He stated that one day he walked down it out of curiosity, but turned around because he felt like he was encroaching on someone's property. He stated that he just wanted to bring up the point that he thinks a lot of people don't know that the fire lanes can be used as public access to the lake. Planning Commissioner Gault noted that none of the fire lanes throughout the City have been marked to indicate what they are. Ms. Blomquist stated that she agrees that all of fire lanes should be marked unless they are going to be abandoned. She stated that this would address the enforcement issue, because she doesn't think people in the neighborhood would willingly break the law and feels if there was a sign there that makes it clear what is and isn't allowed, she thinks most people would follow the rules. Gretchen Thompson, 26295 Oak Ridge Circle, stated that she has lived in the neighborhood for about 14 years and when she first moved in there were remnants of that fire lane having been partially paved which has eroded over the years. She explained that over the years it sort of filled in and got narrower, but the whole time she has lived here this has been used for public access for snowmobiles and ATVs. She stated that she understands the noise concerns because she gets that at her home also, but likes to see everyone be able to have public enjoyment of the lake. She stated that she is in favor of clearer signage and understanding what the rules and hours. Planning Commissioner Gault asked if there was a common law principal at play here because the snowmobile access has allowed without dispute for so many years. He stated that the City of Shorewood has no public access to the largest recreation lake in the Twin Cities, which he feels is disgraceful and he feels it is incumbent on the City to provide full recreational access to Lake Minnetonka whenever and wherever it can. Councilmember Siakel noted that she does not believe it was the City that ever paved that fire lane, but rather one of the adjoining properties. She stated that before Mr. Bongard built his home, that home was only occupied during the summer so the City didn't hear a lot of complaints. Planning Commissioner Gault asked Mr. Bongard if he had known that access was used for snowmobile access whether he would have purchased the property. Mr. Bongard stated that they would not have purchased the property and they most certainly would not have designed their new home with the bedrooms located along the fire lane. Planning Commissioner Gault asked how Mr. Bongard had checked the use of the fire lane prior to purchasing the property. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 1, 2020 Page 11 of 23 Mr. Bongard explained that they were told by their realtor that this was a fire lane, so they spoke to the seller's realtor and the owner about the use of the fire lane. He stated that they told them that it was very quiet and nobody every used it and it hadn't been a problem, but suggested they check with the City. He stated that he physically went to the City and went to the front desk and spoke with two gentleman from the City who told him it was a pedestrian only fire lane and that if there were abuses or transgressions to let the City know and they would promptly deal with it. Jennifer Labadie, 5510 Howards Point Road, noted that she is a member of the City Council and she had received over 12 phone calls last year when the barriers were put in place at this fire lane. She stated that Mr. Bongard was not the only resident that has been complaining about the noise of the snowmobiles. She stated this issue is not being looked at just because of Mr. Bongard and is because of the wording in the ordinance. She stated that she received calls both for and against blocking the fire lane. Michael Blomquist, asked if residents at 26310 or 26245 had complained about noise. Planning Commissioner Chair Maddy stated that he would like to keep conversations more general and noted that Councilmember Labadie mentioned that she had received numerous complaints about the noise. Councilmember Labadie stated that the residents at 26310 and 26245 did not contact her with a noise complaint. She reiterated that she had received comments that were both pro and con of putting up barriers on the fire lane which was the point she was trying to make. Ms. Blomquist stated that she would like to be clear that cutting off the snowmobile access to this fire lane will not stop the snowmobile noise from happening because they will still come through the neighborhood and up their road. Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that he thinks there is a difference between snowmobiles riding up and down the road and congregating in the fire lane. Mr. Bongard stated that most people now know that the fire lane is not designed for motorized vehicles, but once it is opened the activity level is bound to increase as word gets out and noted that there will be a cumulative effect for him when that happens. Councilmember Siakel asked if snowmobiles and ATVs are allowed on City streets. Planning Director Darling stated that she does not have the City code in front of her, but believes there is a significant limitation on the use of public streets for snowmobiles. Planning Commission Chair Maddy stated that if he recalls correctly that it is allowed if you are on your way to an access point and is also allowed if there is a huge blizzard and cars cannot traverse the roadways. Park Commissioner Hirner stated that in the summer months, the City has "no wake" zones and asked about the possibility of slow speed zone until you are a certain distance off the shore to help with some of the noise issues. Planning Commission Chair Maddy stated that he does not think the City has any authority once people are on the lake. He stated that the City can regulate on the fire lane, but once they are on the lake it is the responsibility of Lake Minnetonka Conservation District. He asked if the Commissions would like to move on and talk about the other fire lanes. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 1, 2020 Page 12 of 23 Planning Commissioner Riedel noted that he has the City code in front of him and read aloud the portion of City code that pertains to snowmobiles. Planning Commissioner Gorham stated that his biggest issue with this fire lane is how the City would handle enforcement if it were restricted by times or days. Planning Director Darling stated that it would be enforced by the police, similar to a situation where people are in City parks after hours. She stated that it has been tricky enforcing snowmobile use of the fire lanes because the police to have witness someone using the fire lane which means they would almost have to park near them in order to watch. Planning Commissioner Gorham asked whether it could involve opening or closing a gate of some kind. Planning Director Darling stated that the only place the City has gated access is the west side of Christmas Lake at the boat launch. Park Commission Chair Mangold that this gate has had a whole lot of problems and complications. He stated that he would not say the City cannot explore a gate, but it does open up a whole other world of how it is used and what it is used for. Planning Commissioner Gault stated that it may also create the problem that Mr. Bongard was sharing of people going around the barriers and trespassing on his property to get onto the fire lane. The Commissions decided to move on to discuss fire lane #4. Planning Director Darling noted the location of fire lane #4. Park Commissioner Gallivan asked if the City was aware of anyone using this fire lane because it feels as though you are walking through two people's yards. Planning Commission Chair Maddy stated that he felt the same and it was very uncomfortable to walk this fire lane because it is basically private property at this point. Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that it is not a good launch area, so he doesn't think anybody would go through there. Planning Commission Chair stated that he that feels this is the least accessible fire lane of the ones discussed thus far. Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that he doesn't see any reason for this fire lane to exist. Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that he agreed that this fire lane shouldn't exist Jaz Boysen, 26100 Birch Bluff Road, stated that they have lived here about 5 years and does not recall anybody using this fire lane while he has lived there. Kathy Bongard stated that this fire lane does look like you are walking between two people's yard and feels pretty invasive, but it is basically the same elevation to the lake as fire lane #3. She stated that the reason people don't use fire lane #4 is that people have no idea that it exists. She CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 1, 2020 Page 13 of 23 explained that fire lane #3 has had its path well worn, so people know it is there and is used like a road and theirs is used like a yard. Planning Commissioner Gorham stated that is an interesting point because with fire lane #4 you don't feel like you can enter it but that is partially the City's fault for not keeping it maintained. He stated that perhaps that may be a reason to keep this fire lane, maintain it and try to alleviate some of the traffic down Grant Lorenz. Ms. Bongard stated that she doesn't want to push their traffic off onto someone's property, but if the City is serious about creating public access to the lake, she feels they will have to purchase a home on the lake and turn it into public access. She stated that she feels this is the only way to provide suitable public access to the lake. She stated that the City could sell of the remaining fire lanes and purchase the home to provide public access. She reiterated that only difference between fire lane #3 and fire lane #4 is that fire lane #3 has turned into a well-worn path to the lake. Park Commission Chair Mangold asked about lake access and whether it was included in the long-term Comprehensive Plan to provide public access to the lake. Planning Director Darling stated that there has been discussion, but is not sure that it made it as far as the policy stage. She noted that when the City conducted a survey a few years ago, one of the most common responses was that people wanted more lake access. Park Commission Chair Mangold stated that from a Parks Commission standpoint, they use the Comprehensive Plan as a guiding tool as to where the City is investing long-term. He asked if public access is something that the City should be setting money aside for sometime in the future. He noted that the Park Commission's general attitude right now is that it is not looking for more park land and are simply trying to focus on improving the existing facilities. He stated that if the goal is to add public access in the future, that would be going against their current strategy. He stated that fire lane #4 is similar to fire lanes #1 and #2 in its current use, but demand in the neighborhood with people who may use it, is similar to fire lane #3. Planning Commissioner Gault stated there has been lake front property that has come available for reasonable prices and the City did not jump on the opportunity. Planning Commissioner Gorham stated that this fire lane is already 25 feet wide and will be a nice site if it is cleared, but doesn't believe it would constitute a new park. Park Commission Chair Mangold stated that he agreed, but if, at a concept level, that is something that both Commissions would like to see in the City, he thinks it is something that should be built towards and could be part of the fire lane discussion. He stated that he wants to make sure that the Commissions are not getting caught up in discussions about what the fire lane is versus what the long-term goal is for the City. Planning Commissioner Gault stated that the responses on the survey to have lake access, so the idea of abandoning lake access rather than improving it and letting people know that it is there flies into the face of the survey responses. Planning Commissioner Riedel stated that in looking at the Comprehensive Plan, there is actually language that does suggest that the City should seek to expand its lakeshore access. He read aloud a portion of the Comprehensive Plan regarding lake access. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 1, 2020 Page 14 of 23 Park Commission Chair Mangold stated that he takes this language as a strong argument to keep the fire lanes as what they are from a long-term strategy so the City does not lose ground. Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that he would like know what it would cost to maintain the fire lanes in a way that is adequate versus whether the City needs to look at investing in a property that could become essentially a park with lake access. He stated that he doesn't know the answer, but feels it should be examined. Planning Director Darling stated that it would depend on the level of maintenance that the Commissions would direct the City to undertake. Councilmember Siakel stated that the discussion around the Comprehensive Plan should focus on the lake area and not just Shorewood, related to access to the lake. She stated that the City is mostly residential and has always been that way, but it looks to the greater lake area for access at multiple points throughout the lake. She stated that in her time with the Council, which has been over 10 years, she has never had a discussion about creating more access for people. She stated that the discussion has been about the area, having access, and protecting Lake Minnetonka as an asset to the community that expands beyond just Shorewood. Planning Commission Chair Maddy suggested that the discussion move onto fire lane #5. Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that fire lane #5 is like fire lane #4 except there is a very steep slope to the water, so the lake access in this location is not good. Park Commissioner Gallivan asked if the City had a liability issue with the steep slope if the City chose to do more with the fire lane. Planning Director Darling stated that there would be no more liability than there is with any other park or playground in the City. Planning Commissioner Gault noted that this lot is a saleable lot on the lake with 66 feet of frontage. Planning Director Darling stated that this is dedicated right-of-way, so the City would not be able to sell this property, but could only vacate it. She stated that most of the fire lanes are in this same situation and could not be sold, but could only be vacated. Planning Commissioner Riedel stated that this fire lane feels completely different than the others given its width. He stated that in principal there could be a small trail and a bench and this could be a very small park with lake access. Councilmember Siakel asked why the Commissions would consider that and not consider the fire lane down the street. She stated that both fire lanes run between two adjacent properties and noted that it would cost a fortune to put in stairs or do anything to update at this parcel. Planning Commissioner Riedel stated that he agreed and only mentioned it because this fire lane is so much wider than the others. Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that this parcel has not been maintained and agreed with Councilmember Siakel that this is right between two homeowners and doesn't know how much would be gained by adding a small park in this location. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 1, 2020 Page 15 of 23 Planning Commissioner Riedel stated that he agreed but noted that there doesn't seem to be much incentive to vacate this fire lane. He stated while it is wide enough to do something with, it is not wide enough to create a City park and agrees that the steepness of the slope near the lake would be a challenge. He suggested that the discussion just move on. Park Commissioner Mangold stated that he is unofficially grouping the fire lanes into their potential use and actual use and feels this fire lane feels much more like those that are on the island. Jim Russell, 26080 Birch Bluff Road, asked to comment on fire lane #4. He stated that he was 19 years old when his dad bought this property in 1950, so he claims seniority in the area. He stated that he doesn't see people using the fire lane and believes the neighbors know of its existence. He stated that for public use, there is no parking on Birch Bluff Road and the access to the water in this location is fairly abrupt. He stated that if it were vacated, he does not think it would inconvenience people too much because its use is very occasional. Councilmember Siakel noted that for fire lane #5, Mary Kay Pilley had submitted a document to City Administrator Lerud and Planning Director Darling about Planning Commission meetings from 1972 that reviewed some of the fire lanes. She noted that they had they had actually made a recommendation at that time to vacate fire lane #5. She stated that many of the things the Commissions are discussing have been talked about, but not acted on. Paul King, 25620 Birch Bluff Road, stated that their family has been Shorewood residents for 75 years and as Mary Kay Pilley showed, the City has been talking about this since 1972. He stated that they would be happy to finally have a resolution to this issue. Planning Commission Chair Maddy stated that now he is curious to know if the Commissions are just doing the same thing that they did in 1972. Mr. King stated that it feels like it and there has just been a constant conversation about it and time spent analyzing it and then nothing is done. Planning Commission Chair Maddy asked Planning Director Darling if she had records of what had happened in the past. Planning Director Darling stated that she does and noted that in 1972 the request to vacate the fire lane was denied by the City Council and in 1985 and 1986, there was some talk about getting rid of them, but instead they were kept. She stated that the uses that were permitted were placed into the ordinance, but that the fire lanes would have only minimal maintenance, if any. She stated that the fire lanes have kind of been left to their own devices since that time. Planning Commission Chair Maddy suggested moving onto fire lane #6. Mike Melnychuk, 25360 Birch Bluff Road, stated that he had purchased this property in May of 2019. He stated that as a former fire fighter he would agree that fire lane #6 is not usable for fighting fires. He stated that his driveway cuts across the fire lane ditch, so travel in the ditch would be virtually impossible by pedestrians or cross country skiers. He stated that he feels there is plenty of year-round access through Crescent Beach. He stated that he also does not think fire lane #6 is usable for public access to the lake. He noted that he feels the enjoyment of his own property has been diminished because of the unmaintained status of the fire lane property. He stated that he feels it would be very expensive for the City to maintain this fire lane and noted that if the City chose to abandon it, he would be more than happy to clean up the property and maintain it. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 1, 2020 Page 16 of 23 Planning Commissioner Gault stated that he doesn't think abandoning the whole fire lane would be possible because the north portion is connected to Crescent Beach and the parking area. Planning Commission Chair Maddy asked if any of the beach parking area was located on Shorewood property. Planning Director Darling stated that it is pretty close to the jurisdictional boundary and there could be some part that goes over and noted that the City does need to maintain control of the drainage ditch_ Park Commission Chair Mangold stated that from a Park Commission perspective, Crescent Beach used to be a cooperative project with Tonka Bay and Tonka Bay took over full care and maintenance a few years ago. Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that he knows there were some comments from residents and asked if the City knows if, legally, motorized vehicles are allowed on Crescent Beach. Planning Director Darling stated that motorized vehicles are allowed in the parking area, but Tonka Bay does not allow snowmobile access on their side of the fire lane. Planning Commission Chair Maddy stated that the City does allow snowmobile access on its side of the fire lane. Planning Commissioner Gault stated that Mr. Melnychuk had mentioned an ice road which implies that it is open to all motorized traffic. Planning Commission Chair Maddy stated that his understanding is that Tonka Bay does their best to restrict vehicle access at this point. Mr. Melnychuk stated that he has spent 2 winters here and has not seen any attempt to limit motorized vehicles through this area. He stated that there is quite a bit of traffic and it is plowed, even if it isn't by the city. He stated that there is a quite a bit of car and snowmobile traffic that goes through the area. Michael Blomquist, stated that he has been fishing the lake for 20 years and the ice roads are plowed by residents that just want to go fish the lake. He stated that they take their own time to plow the road. He stated that people want to fish the lake and use a safe access which is Crescent Beach and the end of Grant Lorenz. He stated that you don't want to have ice shifts. He stated that people should know this before they buy a house because this is one of the busiest public lakes in the area. Councilmember Siakel stated that Tonka Bay does maintain Crescent Beach and Shorewood pays them a fee towards those services. She stated that she has never seen a police officer or anybody enforcing traffic on or off the lake at Crescent Beach and she has lived there since 1993. Planning Commission Chair Maddy suggested moving discussion onto fire lane #7. Planning Commissioner Eggenberger asked if, for the purpose of discussion, if they could group fire lanes #7410 together. There was a consensus to group fire lanes #7410 together. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 1, 2020 Page 17 of 23 Planning Commissioner Gault stated that all four of these fire lanes are overgrown with mature trees. Planning Commission Chair Maddy asked if the City needed four fire lanes in the area because of the size of Lake William. Planning Commissioner Gorham stated that in the event that the City wants to maintain some lake access here, he thinks fire lane #7 seems like the only decent option because the other ones are very steep and inaccessible. He noted that he had spoken with one of the neighbors who shared with him that once upon a time it was a pretty popular lake and people did use the access points from time to time. He stated that he would hate to see them all go away, but agrees that the City probably doesn't need all of them, especially because the others are fairly steep and inaccessible. Planning Commission Chair Maddy asked if there was a structure located on fire lane #10. Communications Director Moore stated that there is a resident who would like to speak, but has not been able to be unmuted on the call. She explained that this resident had typed comments that stated, "There is a parking lot right on Minnetonka Boulevard and also it gives direct access to them right off the trail." Councilmember Johnson explained how people can "raise their hand" and be unmuted in order to speak to the Commissions. Communications Director Moore stated that the resident added a comment, "It is right across from the Greenwood entrance." Planning Commission Chair Maddy stated that may speak to keeping an access on that side of Lake William. Park Commission Chair Mangold stated that he does not see a use for these fire lanes. Planning Commissioner Riedel stated that given there is access for anybody who may want to kayak or otherwise from Minnetonka Boulevard and given it is a small lake without much incentive to go snowmobiling on it, he thinks there would be minimal use to any fire lane. He stated that this is essentially a completely different discussion from the fire lanes on Lake Minnetonka where there is considerable pressure and motivation to use them. Communications Director Moore stated that another resident who has realized that they can communicate via the comment section stated, "They would like to get back to the snowmobile/ATV discussion and that it is not legal on the streets at any time and that snowmobilers that are on the inside of the plow ridge it will reduce speed and there is a curfew." Planning Commission Chair Maddy stated that the Commissions had checked the ordinance on that issue. Planning Commissioner Riedel offered to copy and paste the ordinance that he read aloud earlier into the chat window. Planning Director Darling stated that she does believe there are some hourly restrictions on it, but it is in a different part of the snowmobile section. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 1, 2020 Page 18 of 23 Planning Commissioner Riedel offered to cut and paste that section in the chat window also. Councilmember Siakel suggested that City staff research that issue and report back because it appears as though the group is generalizing without accurate data. She stated that she thought it was clarified at a Council meeting that they are not allowed on City streets, so she thinks that issue needs to be clarified. Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that since there is access from Minnetonka Boulevard to this lake, he agrees that there is no reason for the City to retain the fire lanes on Lake William. Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that he agrees. Councilmember Siakel stated that all the fire lanes are in residential areas and just because this is Lake William, she doesn't see that much of a difference between what is on Lake William and what has been seen on some of the other fire lanes along Birch Bluff. She stated that they all cut between houses, have rugged terrain, have not been maintained, have not been used, and are obsolete. Park Commission Chair Mangold stated that he would argue that there are only two fire lanes that the Commissions have discussed that are really being used. Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that the fire lane with a drainage ditch is in a different category as well, so the City will need to keep that easement. He stated he feels, at the very least, the City should declassify them as "fire lanes". He stated that they are not being used as fire lanes and perhaps the City should call them lake access, service road, or park. Planning Commission Chair Maddy stated that is a good point that the City should not call these something that they haven't been for over 100 years. Councilmember Siakel stated that most of the descriptions are also obsolete for almost all of the fire lanes. She gave examples of being able to launch a kayak which at most of the fire lanes would be very difficult, if not impossible, to do and will not be used in that fashion. Park Commissioner Hirner stated that his concern is that if the City would get rid of all 4 fire lanes on Lake William there would not be any access to the lake within Shorewood, which he feels is a mistake. Planning Commissioner Eggenberger asked what kind of access the City would need to Lake William. Park Commissioner Hirner stated that he didn't know, but if the purpose is to have lake access, within Shorewood, the City would not have access to Lake William. Planning Commissioner Gorham stated that the neighbor told him that the fire lane was highly used before the lake became too toxic to inhabit, but should the lake get cleaned up sometime, the City may want to have access. He stated that he hates to see it go away if at some point the City may want it. Councilmember Siakel asked for clarification around the idea that the City has to maintain lake access for people. She noted that there are multiple places along Lake Minnetonka that have CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 1, 2020 Page 19 of 23 free access to the lake so she is unsure why it needs to be a goal of Shorewood to maintain lake access. Planning Commission Chair Maddy stated that he thinks this became part of the conversation because the City was under -utilizing some properties and through our Comprehensive Plan update, they found that people like to be connected to the lakes. He stated that the City has access to the lakes and our citizens like that access and he feels the conversation tonight is to decide whether they want to change this or leave it as it is. He stated that he thinks this is the higher -level discussion that the Commissioners were aiming for in discussing what they want to recommend to Council. Park Commission Chair Mangold stated that he is personally at the point where he believes the City does not need all of the fire lanes, but doesn't think he wants to let all of them go. Planning Commissioner Riedel stated that he agrees with Park Commission Chair Mangold and feels the fire lanes along Birch Bluff deserve more discussion, specific maintenance, and signage. He stated that none of the other fire lanes have immediate or long-term value to the City because the access is so limited and constrained. He stated that his personal opinion is that the two fire lanes on the islands and the four on Lake William should be vacated and much more discussion is needed for the fire lanes on Birch Bluff. Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that he agreed. Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that he agreed and does not think that the City needs to retain all four fire lanes along Birch Bluff, but agrees that will require a broader conversation. He stated that he agrees with Park Commissioner Chair Mangold that if the City is going to have them, the City should be taking care of them and there should also be signage. He stated that he thinks the discussion about providing greater access to the lakes is an important conversation, because he is not sure that these really fulfill what people envision when they talk about access to the lakes. Park Commissioner Chair Mangold stated that he agrees that the fire lanes along Birch Bluff need much more discussion surrounding the various options, but the others he would support looking at options for vacating them. Planning Commissioner Gorham stated he thinks the Commissions are in agreement that fire lanes 8-10 should be vacated and suggested that the City begin with those and then tackle the nuances of the other ones individually. He stated that he feels like the City should hold on to them, because he is taking a conservative approach. Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that if the City really wants lake access, perhaps they should buy a property, as was suggested earlier, in order to make a decent lake access and not try to make one out of a fire lane. Planning Commissioner Gorham stated that he feels that solution feels extreme and feels that some of these parcels would just require some imagination to be able to make the most of what the City already has. Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that the City also needs to be willing to spend the money to maintain these parcels. He stated that if the City is going to keep these parcels, the City needs to maintain them. He stated that he feels some certainty needs to be provided and gave the example of near altercations that have occurred surrounding the use of fire lane #3. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 1, 2020 Page 20 of 23 Planning Commission Chair Maddy suggested that the group give a definitive separate recommendation for fire lane #3. Park Commissioner Gallivan suggested recommending that the City vacate fire lanes #8, #9, and #10. There was a consensus of the Commissions that fire lanes #8, #9, and #10 do not show any long-term benefit for the citizens and could be vacated. Planning Director Darling explained the process to vacate the fire lanes. Park Commission Chair Mangold suggested that perhaps the fire lanes that are kept should have a different classification and have some sort of signage clarifying that it is City land. Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that he likes that idea. Park Commissioner Hirner asked what legalities the City would have if the designation was different. Planning Commissioner Chair Maddy stated that it is City property and can be regulated as such. Planning Director Darling stated that they are public right-of-way, but are defined as fire lanes and shown on the official zoning map as fire lanes. She stated that if anything changed, it would also have to be changed in the Zoning Ordinance. Park Commission Chair Mangold stated that he is not sure his idea makes sense and just threw out the idea because of the lift station located at fire lane #2. Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that he would suggest that the City just leave fire lane #2 alone. Planning Commission Chair Maddy stated that he likes the idea of putting up signage. Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that he does not think the City needs to keep it as is, as a fire lane. He stated that he feels it could be classified as City property that doesn't really fall under one of the categories of use because it is basically a service road. Planning Commissioner Gault stated that he likes the idea of designating it as a service road because it is located at the most remote location in the City. There was consensus of the Commissions to review the classification of fire lane #2 and consider designation as a service road, look at maintenance expectations from Public Works, and whatever decision is made that signage be placed on the property clarifying it. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 1, 2020 Page 21 of 23 Planning Commissioner Gorham stated that he would like to keep fire lane #1, but would like to hear more from Public Works regarding the maintenance needs. He reiterated that he would like to keep all the fire lanes, besides #8, #9, and #10. Park Commission Chair Mangold stated that perhaps that is the direction for right now is to get input from Public Works regarding maintenance of the other fire lanes and see if there are any liability issues that the City should make the Commissions aware of before any decisions are made regarding signage. Planning Commission Chair Maddy stated that his understanding is that the group would like to look into vacating #8, #9, and #10 and Public Works feedback on the other fire lanes, especially the drainage ditch near Crescent Beach and fire lane #2. Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that he feels that whatever the City decides to keep, maintenance of them needs to be kept up. Planning Commission Chair Maddy stated that the Commissions will get input from Public Works on all of the fire lanes. Planning Commissioner Gault stated that he would like to know what kind of maintenance they are talking about, especially for some of the fire lanes that are fully treed. He stated that for those it would be very difficult for someone to get a canoe or kayak down there and asked if the Commissions were saying that Public Works should be looking at maintaining a clear path to the lake shore. Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that even if the City does not allow public access, he feels the fire lane properties should be maintained, such as having the tree trimmed so it is not just wild property that no one knows is City property. Park Commission Chair Mangold stated that he believes that there are different levels of maintenance within Public Works on City owned properties so if these fell into the lowest, outlot category, he doesn't think much would be done other than to know that they needed to follow up if a tree fell down. Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that perhaps the minimum would be just a sign. Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that a sign would be fine, but if they are at the lowest maintenance category now, he would like to know how much it would cost to take the maintenance to the next level. Planning Commissioner Gault stated that his point is that if the City is going to maintain the property, it should be maintained to the level that the class allows. He stated that if the City doesn't want to do anything with the property, he doesn't understand why they would keep them. He stated that he thinks the minimum maintenance should be defined by the class, which would be allowing someone to walk from the street to the lake. He stated that he sees no sense in keeping them unless they are going to be maintained so they are usable to the residents of the City. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 1, 2020 Page 22 of 23 Councilmember Siakel stated that she feels the conversation has migrated to the functionality and maintenance with really not much discussion about the impact to the people and the residents that live near the fire lanes. She stated that if the City does vacate them there will be tax implications to the nearby residents so she feels it is not just a question of the functionality of the fire lane but also the impact it will have on the residents. She stated that she feels the City needs to solicit more feedback from the people that this will immediately impact before a decision is made. Planning Commissioner Gault stated that he agreed that the City should be soliciting feedback but disagrees that we should give more credence to the people that happen to be adjacent to the properties than the people that would use it if they knew about it and it was accessible. He stated that this is not property that should just be considered as only impacting the lake shore residents. Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that all the residents have access to the lake via neighboring towns, which brings up an important point about how important that is and whether our residents are currently being adequately served by what is available. Planning Commissioner Gorham stated that Councilmember Siakel is correct, because he doesn't fully understand the implications of vacating properties or if the nearby property owners would welcome having extra land or not. Planning Commissioner Eggenberger asked what would happen if the City decides they want to vacate a fire lane and the adjacent property owners are not interested in the land. Planning Commissioner Gorham suggested that perhaps this warrants another joint meeting to allow for discussion of some of the deeper points on this issue. The Commissions discussed giving parameters to Public Works regarding what type of maintenance costs they are looking for. Planning Director Darling stated that she thinks she has a good handle on what information the Commissions are looking for regarding maintenance for the fire lanes. Park Commission Chair Mangold stated that he would summarize the discussion as looking for input from Public Works on maintenance costs, signage options, input from residents around the fire lanes, and options for vacating. Planning Commission Chair Maddy stated that he would add the elephant in the room of whether the City would like to change the use of any of the fire lanes or have them remain with the status quo. Mr. Melnychuk stated that he is confused by the conversation that the Crescent Beach fire lane having use because there is no use on that fire lane as it exists today, because it is a ditch with overgrown trees, weeds, and buckthorn. He stated that is willing to maintain the property. Bruce Russell, stated that his grandpa owns the property at 26080 Birch Bluff Road. He stated that he knows that the fire lane near his property has not been maintained by the City at all and he has personally done quite a bit of the mowing on the property. He stated that a few years ago his grandpa installed new rip rap, but received a permit from the City and was allowed to put it along the fire lane as well, at his own cost. Park Commissioners Hirner and Gallivan left the meeting. CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB RD JOINT PARK/PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION SHOREWOOD CITY HALL TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2021 7:00 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE JOINT PARK/PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION Park Chair Mangold convened the meeting via Zoom at 7:00 p.m. A. Roll Call Present: Park Chair Mangold, Commissioners Garske, Schmid, Hirner, and Gallivan; Planning Chair Maddy, Commissioners Gorham, Eggenberger, Gault, and Riedel; Planning Director Darling; Park and Recreation Director Grout Absent: None B. Review Agenda There was a consensus to approve the agenda, as presented. 2. DISCUSSION ITEM: A. Fire Lanes Planning Chair Maddy reminded the Commission that the discussion tonight would involve Fire Lanes #1, #3, #4, #5, and #6. Planning Director Darling reminded the Commissions of the purpose for discussing these fire lanes was that the group thought they warranted more discussion. She stated that the primary questions they were considering were to really look at the allowed use; are any additional uses appropriate; or should improvements be done in order to allow the site to serve as public lake access. She stated that there had been quite a bit of discussion about no longer having some of these fire lanes and vacating them. She stated that she had provided additional information on vacating the fire lanes at the November meeting. She stated that the DNR has indicated that they would do several tests on our discussions surrounding vacations. She stated that she has also had discussions with the Fire Department about public access points that can be used as observation points when there are emergencies on the lake. She stated they would also like to have a discussion about the fire lanes being able to be used for smaller vehicle access in case of emergency and also have a place to launch drones for observation. She stated that the Fire Department has also asked that the fire lanes be more identifiable so all of the fire fighters would actually know where they are. She stated that the bottom line is that the Fire Department would like to maintain some public use for public safety purposes of the fire lanes. She stated that in November she had also given the Commissions a quote for providing a 10-foot path on each of the fire lanes out to the water and that was $25,300. Park Commissioner Schmid asked for the specific definition of a fire lane. Planning Director Darling explained that a fire lane is defined as a public access onto one of the two lakes in the City. She explained that they are divided into different classifications and that JOINT PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2021 PAGE 2 OF 21 code section was included in the packet. She noted that one classification allows pedestrian access only and one allows some vehicle access. Park Commissioner Schmid stated that it sounds like, in theory, these should all be left open so emergency vehicles can access these areas. Planning Director Darling stated that they are not just for emergency access but also for public access. Park Commissioner Schmid asked if people could park a vehicle at the fire lanes Planning Director Darling explained that there is one fire lane where a vehicle can be parked and that is at Crescent Beach and noted that other than that, the vehicles should not be on the fire lanes themselves, but out on public streets. Planning Commissioner Riedel stated that the information she shared from the Fire Department is new information that they have an interest in maintaining the fire lanes for emergency access. He asked if they had indicated which fire lanes had the most value as these access points. Planning Director Darling stated that the Fire Chief does not want any of the fire lanes to be vacated and would like as many potential access or observation points as possible. Planning Commissioner Riedel asked if this recommendation applied to the fire lanes that were located along Lake Williams. Planning Director Darling stated that the recommendation did apply and reiterated that the Fire Chief does not want any of the fire lanes in the City to be vacated. Planning Chair Maddy asked if the Mound Fire Department, who serves the islands, had similar desires for the fire lane access points on the islands. Planning Director Darling stated that was correct. Planning Commissioner Garske asked if the Fire Chief had visited the fire lanes or if he was just asking for more information. Planning Director Darling stated that the Fire Chief has gone out to every single fire lane. Park Commission Chair Mangold noted that information that the City received back from the DNR regarding the potential of vacating the fire lanes related to "present and future access to the public'. He stated that, while not impossible, it would make it difficult to vacate the fire lanes. Planning Commissioner Gault stated that based on the DNR feedback and the information from the Fire Chief, that is a future public use, so it cannot be vacated. Planning Commissioner Maddy asked if any of the Commissions had an appetite for vacating fire lanes now that the information from the DNR and the Fire Department have been shared. There was Consensus of the Joint Park and Planning Commission to take the idea of vacating fire lanes off the table. JOINT PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2021 PAGE 3 OF 21 Park Commissioner Garske noted that if the Commission decides that the fire lanes will be kept for Fire Department access to the lake, there needs to be a discussion about who will fund the maintenance because some of them are currently impassable and will take work to get them usable. Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that he agreed and gave the example of Fire Lane #5 because he does not see how this fire lane could be of any use to the Fire Department with the way it is currently constructed. He stated that he does agree that the information shared by both the DNR and the Fire Department takes vacation off the table, but feels there will need to be discussion about the classification and maintenance of the fire lanes. Planning Commissioner Gault stated that he does not think it makes sense that the Fire Department wants, for example, to keep both Fire Lanes #3 and #4 because they are only about 100 yards from each other. Planning Chair Maddy stated that he thinks the Fire Chief was basically saying that whatever access he can get to the lake, he will take, regardless of where it is located. Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that he agrees with the sentiment behind what Planning Commissioner Gault stated, but given the DNB's regulations around this and the position of the Fire Chief, vacating any of these would be an uphill battle. Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that he could make the same argument about the proximity between Fire Lanes #5 and #6. Park Chair Mangold suggested the group start the discussion and Fire Lane #1 and work their way through the rest. Fire Lane #1 Planning Chair Maddy reminded the Commissions of the location of this fire lane and noted that there is some private development on this fire lane. He reviewed the questions that Planning Director Darling asked the Commissions to consider as part of their discussions. Planning Director Darling gave a summary of the past discussion and information surrounding Fire Lane #1. Planning Chair Maddy asked if there was anyone from the public that would like to speak regarding Fire Lane #1. There being no public comment, he asked the Commissioners to give input on Fire Lane #1. Park Commissioner Hirner asked if the equipment and material from the private home owner and the yacht club that was placed on the fire lane had been removed. Planning Director Darling explained that the answer is yes and no. The City had asked the property owner at the home to the south if they would cut off their irrigation at their property line and that has been done. She explained that they had also taken their personal items out of the fire lane, however the yacht club still has a section of dock being stored in the area that has not been moved. She noted that the boundary between the fire lane and the yacht club property had JOINT PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2021 PAGE 4 OF 21 not been clearly defined. She stated that she has not required them to remove it at this point since the boundary is not clearly defined. She stated that she has also not required the home owners to remove the boulders and landscaping that has been placed over the years to essentially make it look like private property and noted that some of it was done before the current owners moved to the property. Planning Chair Maddy explained that this is a Class 1 fire lane which means it is basically designed for pedestrian use, canoes, small boats, cross country skiing and generally quiet lake access_ Planning Commissioner Riedel reminded the Commission of past discussion that parking for this fire lane will be a huge issue for public access because there is no place to park. He stated that whoever would use it would be a resident on the island or someone who could find a place to park and walk to the access point. Planning Director Darling stated that the yacht club has indicated that there may be room out there to build a few parking spaces. Councilmember Callies introduced herself and explained that she is the new Council liaison to the Planning Commission and noted that she may not be able to stay for the entirety of the meeting. Planning Commissioner Eggenberger recommended that the City define the boundary, not vacate the fire lane, leave it as a Class 1, provide signage, and maintain it. Park Commissioner Garske asked if recommending a parking space or two would require changing the classification of the fire lane. Planning Director Darling stated that parking would be under a different classification. Planning Commissioner Gault stated that this access could provide good western access for things like snowmobiles and ATVs. Planning Commissioner Gorham stated that he feels it may be a bit premature to change the classification for snowmobiles and suggested waiting to see how it goes with the existing use and the increasing the awareness of the fire lane. Park Chair Mangold stated that he agreed that this fire lane is best left as Class 1 and defined by boundaries and signs. There was a Consensus of the Commissions to keep Fire Lane #1 as Class 1, not allow new uses, define clear boundaries, maintain the area, and provide signage. Fire Lane #3 Planning Director Darling gave a summary of the past discussion and information surrounding Fire Lane #3. She noted that have been some private improvements by the adjacent land owner that are in the public right of way, but staff has not provided any direction to the property owner as of yet. She noted that the lathe marking the location of the fire lanes have been removed, but the subgrade/survey markers are still there so they can be reidentified. JOINT PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2021 PAGE 5 OF 21 Planning Chair Maddy stated that identifying the boundaries will be an important part of the fire lanes. Park Commissioner Gallivan asked about the interaction between Fire Lane #3 and #6 regarding snowmobile access. He asked for clarification on past input that you could not truly access the lake from Crescent Beach with a snowmobile because it is mostly on the Shorewood side and is really mostly a drainage ditch and the other side of Crescent Beach is Tonka Bay and it is not classified for snowmobile access. Planning Director Darling noted that she believes that Tonka Bay is also discussing their fire lanes but stated that she had discovered that Shorewood does allow snowmobile access, but Tonka Bay does not. She stated that it is challenging to find the actual boundary right between Tonka Bay and Shorewood. She stated that it does appear that the Shorewood side is mostly within the drainage ditch or along some of the upland property that looks like the adjacent home. Planning Chair Maddy asked if there were any members of the public that would like to give input on Fire Lane #3. Michael Blomquist, 5425 Grant Lorenz Road, stated that Fire Lane #3 is totally accessible. He noted that right now it is just foot traffic and everyone is being totally responsible and obeying the rules and going down to Crescent Beach because that it the most accessible fire lane in the City. He stated that this access is lighted and is probably the safest access point. He stated that according to information shared by Planning Director Darling this fire lane should be 25 feet wide and he would like to know where the other 18 feet of it went because that is about how wide it is. Planning Director Darling stated that if it is found that there are private improvements within the fire lane, the City can ask that they be removed, but explained that she had stopped asking adjacent residences to do this until the Commissions had finished their discussions. Mr. Blomquist asked why Planning Director Darling had stopped making those requests. Planning Director Darling explained that if the Commissions were proposing to vacate some of these fire lanes it seemed pointless to request that the private improvements be removed. Mike Melnichek, 25360 Birch Bluff Road, asked if there were any variances granted for any improvements along Fire Lane #3. Planning Director Darling stated that there no variances granted because the City cannot grant variances for uses within the right of way. Mr. Melnichek clarified that the improvements were made without City approval. He asked if there had been any attempt, to date, of trying to enforce the changes. Planning Director Darling stated that there may have been some discussions with the property owner regarding the camera, but that was another staff person. Planning Chair Maddy reviewed the questions that needed to be considered JOINT PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAV, JANUARY 12, 2021 PAGE G OF 21 Planning Commissioner Riedel stated that the only reason the City is discussing all of the fire lanes is because of the issues surrounding this particular fire lane. He that this fire lane is clearly classified as not allowing motorized use and the adjacent property owner has expressed his objection to the motorized use. He stated that regardless of the fact that people have been using it for snowmobile access for many years, he cannot see a case being made that the City should change the use classification. He stated that based on principle, he believes this fire lane should remain non -motorized access. Park Chair Mangold stated that if there needs to be discussion about snowmobiles having more access to the lake, he believes that can be discussed. He stated that he feels allowing snowmobile access in this location just because it has always been done here is a slippery slope because it means the City was not enforcing what it should have been. He stated that he is leaning towards agreeing with Planning Commissioner Riedel. He stated that he feels the City should be enforcing what is already in place which means there should also not be trucks down there removing docks. Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that the homeowner should also not be able to park vehicles on the fire lane and he agrees with the other Commissions that the use should retain its current classification and the City should enforce it. Planning Commissioner Gault stated that he feels there can be a case made for common usage and the City has received about 10 letters from people who feel they were sold their house with the idea that they would have this access to the lake. He stated that he feels the feedback has been overwhelming to continue the common usage as it has been used for decades. He stated that he doesn't think it would be right for the City to now come in and just say it should have been enforcing this all along. He stated that it is not legal to access the lake from Birch Bluff Beach because the Shorewood portion is unusable and it is not allowed on the Tonka Bay portion. He stated that by insisting this be retained as Class 1, he feels it would be telling the residents, that the City will not allow you to have motorized access to the lake from Shorewood property which he doesn't feel is something that a City with the name "shore" in it should be telling its citizens. Planning Commissioner Gorham stated that normally he would agree with Commissioners Riedel, Eggenberger and Park Chair Mangold in this situation, however the homeowner seems amenable to supporting the neighborhoods enjoyment of using the fire lane for snowmobile access. He stated that he is afraid of a potential liability issue with the homeowner, but feels that if the City can find a way to make this work with what the homeowner would be agreeable to, he doesn't know why the City wouldn't work towards that end. Park Chair Mangold stated that if the Commissioners are saying that this is the best, safest access to the lake moving forward, then he is more on board with that argument than the argument that the City is going to continue doing it because it has always allowed it. Planning Commissioner Gorham stated that his point is that the City has heard from a lot of people who want the allowed usage in this location to change and the adjacent property owner is willing to accept change with some caveats and he believes the City should explore in that direction rather than being rigid. Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that he would like to leave it, as is, for right now, but thinks the City should explore the point that Planning Commissioner Gorham was getting at and speak to the adjacent homeowner and get some clarity with what he would be okay with. He stated that JOINT PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2021 PAGE 7 OF 21 he is not entirely clear on what that homeowner's position is. He stated that he also thinks the City should engage in a conversation with Tonka Bay when it comes to Crescent Beach. He asked if the City truly believed this is the safest and best access for snowmobiles in the City. He stated that he would not be comfortable moving forward until some of these questions are answered and reminded the Commissioners that the homeowner did his due diligence and checked with the City and found out the classification of the fire lane prior to purchasing this property. Planning Chair Maddy stated that his understanding of the discussion thus far is that many of the Commissioners do not want to see the classification changed right away, but see a chance for a compromise and an opportunity to work with the adjacent neighbors. Planning Commissioner Gault stated that he feels that is just kicking the can down the road. He stated that he thinks the question for the Commissions to answer is whether it will be left as a Class 1 or if they will recommend it be changed to a Class 2 with conditions. Park Commissioner Gallivan asked if there were currently hours of operation and noted that he does not know how the City can enforce this type of thing. He asked if it was realistic to expect people not to use it between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. just because a sign is posted when they have already been using the fire lane in a manner that they aren't supposed to. Planning Commissioner Gault stated that he believes people were using in that manner because they did not know it wasn't allowed. Park Commissioner Hirner stated that he is on the middle ground for this issue and thinks that it is not one or the other. He stated that he feels there should be a way to satisfy everyone's concerns. He stated that some of the things that could be considered is installing a fence to help deflect noise and look at the timing of the hours of operation. He stated that he understands that the homeowner did their due diligence, however there is a long-term use and thinks there is a viable reason to come to an amenable agreement with all the parties. He stated that he is not comfortable with this group making that decision without having more information from the parties involved and getting their opinions on what they are willing to accept. Planning Commissioner Gault stated that the City has already gathered this information and he keeps hearing over and over that the Commissions need to recognize the concerns of one homeowner. Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that he does not see that as a fair characterization. Planning Chair Maddy stated that the one homeowner he is referencing has the law on his side, as well. Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that people are saying that they are open to changing it with conditions, but are also suggested that this be discussed with the one homeowner. He stated that the fact that the Commissions are having this conversation is an acknowledgement that the City is open to listening to their concerns. He stated that he agrees with Park Commissioner Hirner that the City can engage in conversations so this does not kick the can down the road. Planning Commissioner Gault asked if the posted hours of operations for snowmobiles also applied to City streets. JOINT PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2021 PAGE S OF 21 Planning Director Darling confirmed that those hours are valid within the City. Planning Commissioner Gault stated that the only reason snowmobiles will be running around on City streets is in order to access the lake. He stated that it seems unreasonable to limit their access to the lake more than the access would be limited to the City streets. Planning Commissioner Riedel noted that people are only permitted to drive their snowmobile from their residence on the most direct path to the lake access, which means people are not allowed to just go joy riding on City streets with their snowmobile. Park Commissioner Garske asked what would happen if the City just decided to change the classification to a Class 2. Planning Director Darling stated that there are legal avenues that the homeowner could take. She stated that one of the letters included in the packet had a photo of some new signage that the City of Tonka Bay just put up in their fire lane. She read aloud the sign that says, "No Snowmobiles or other Motorized Vehicles Allowed in Fire Lanes between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m." and is also winter access only. She stated that this sign is posted at Crescent Beach. Planning Commissioner Riedel stated that this information changes the discussion if Crescent Beach has snowmobile access because people along Birch Bluff Road have that option for lake access. Park Chair Mangold stated that he does not think this picture was taken at Crescent Beach. Planning Director Darling stated that she was mistaken and the sign is posted at the bay access near Manitou Road. Mr. Blomquist, asked if there had ever been a parking issue at this fire lane with vehicles and trailers. Planning Director Darling stated that she had not heard of parking issues Mr. Blomquist stated that he agrees with the times that have been discussed. He stated that he has a friend that lives on Lake Independence and he has a private access that is a gate, with a locked gate that works really well. He noted that there is not a sign at Crescent Beach. Mr. Melnichek also stated that there is not a sign at Crescent Beach. Planning Chair Maddy took a poll of the Commissioners to gauge their feelings about a proposal to allow snowmobile and ATFV access on Fire Lane #3, which means a change to Class 2 with extra conditions — Ayes — Hirner, Garske, Gorham, Gault, Nay — Mangold, Gallivan, Schmid, Eggenberger, Riedel, Maddy Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that he thinks if the City pursues a collaborative route, that may change the consensus to a different vote. JOINT PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2021 PAGE 9 OF 21 Park Commissioner Garske stated that he is torn because he can see both sides and thinks they both have valid points. He stated that his decision to support changing this fire lane to a Class 2 was because having access to the lake is a value add to the community. Park Chair Mangold stated that he thinks there are two choices: to present this to Council as is, showing that both Commissions are very split on this issue and get them to weigh in, or can attempt to refine the question. Park Commissioner Schmid asked if there is another option for snowmobilers getting onto the lake other than through the fire lanes. Planning Commissioner Gault stated that there is not. He suggested that the Commissions recommend to Council that this be put out to a public hearing with the notification that the City is considering reclassifying Fire Lane #1 from a Class 1 to a Class 2. Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that he would support that suggestion. Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that he thinks of that as a totally different conversation or path forward. He stated that he is totally fine engaging in conversations with the homeowner and Tonka Bay but voted no because he felt he was being asked if he was ready to classify it as a Class 2 fire lane tonight. Planning Chair Maddy stated that he believes this is the fourth public meeting the City has held regarding fire lanes. Planning Commissioner Gorham stated that holding another public hearing is just kicking the can on this issue. He stated that the group has voted 6 to 4 and doesn't know what else needs to be said. Park Chair Mangold stated that he is fine sending this to the City Council with the reality that the group is very split and leave it in their lap. He stated that he does not think this group should just kick the can and should either send it to Council as it or continue to talk about it until there is a clearer consensus on the action. Planning Commissioner Gault stated that the Commission keep talking about Crescent Beach being the alternate access, however the part that is within the City cannot be used as access. He stated that it seems like the City is just saying people can just use the Tonka Bay side, but asked what would happen if Tonka Bay doesn't agree to that idea. He asked what would happen if Tonka Bay felt this was a good idea, but only for Tonka Bay residents. He stated that he believes as a City, it is incumbent on us to provide access to the lake within the City. Commissioner Riedel stated that he disagrees and feels the letter of the law would absolutely prevail in this situation. He stated that the letter of the law is clear that motorized access is not allowed and the homeowner, if he chose to contest a change in the use of the fire lane, he would prevail in court and the City would lose. He stated that it is like adverse possession and it is very hard to make the case that people have used it this way, so that is now the rule. He stated that he has sympathy for the person who bought the property thinking that there would not be snowmobile access to the lake. He stated that he also does not think this issue should be kicked down the road and noted that the opinion of that homeowner is pivotal to this discussion because if he would be agreeable to a change allowing motorized access with enforcement and rules, then JOINT PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2021 PAGE 10 OF 21 that would change his vote. He stated that this is the fourth public meeting and doesn't think those should just continue to be held and this continued to be discussed. Planning Commissioner Gorham stated that changes in the classification with restrictions is dependent on the homeowner agreeing to the changes. He stated that it will not stop him from suing if the City does it without his consent. He stated that he was suggesting Class 2 with restricted access and enforcement, but the homeowner needs to indicate support of it. Park Commissioner Gallivan moved that if the homeowners at the adjacent properties are amenable to the change in classifications with restrictions, that the Joint Park and Planning Commission would support reclassifying Fire Lane #3 to Class 2. Park Commissioner Hirner seconded the motion. Park Commissioner Garske noted that reclassifying to a Class 2 would remove the ability to fish from shore at this location. Planning Director Darling stated that the classifications could be amended. She explained that this really only applies to Crescent Beach because it is a swimming beach. Planning Commissioner Gorham stated that there may need to be a larger discussion about wat the word "amenable" means in this instance and may be something the City Attorney may need to weight in on. Planning Commissioner Gault stated that he is not comfortable with the idea of giving two people veto power over this decision. Ayes — Hirner, Gallivan, Schmid, Garske, Gorham, Eggenberger, Gault, Riedel Nays — Mangold, Maddy. Motion carried 8-2. There was discussion of the use of barriers. There was a Consensus of the Commissions to provide signage with hours of operation, define clear boundaries, maintain the area for Fire Lane #3. Fire Lane #4 Planning Director Darling gave a summary of the past discussion and information surrounding Fire Lane #4. Park Commissioner Hirner stated that although this is close to Fire Lane #3, he goes back to the public safety aspect of the fire department needing to have access to the lake. Planning Commissioner Maddy opened this item up for public participation. There was no public input. Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that if the City is going to leave it as a fire lane, it will need signage and maintenance. Planning Commissioner Gault noted that it appears as though there are some fairly mature trees located in this fire lane. JOINT PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2021 PAGE I 1 OF 21 Park Commissioner Garske stated that he visited this location today and there are some large trees in the middle of it, but noted that on foot it is fairly easy to get to the water. He stated that he spoke with one of the homeowners who explained that the fire lane used to be used much more open, but then other homeowners had planted things in the fire lane to make it look nicer, which also made it feel more like private property, so they stopped using it. Park Chair Mangold stated that if the City has already determined that it will not vacate the fire lanes, that this fire lane should be enforced and signed the same way the other Class 1 fire lanes are. Planning Chair Maddy asked if he meant taking out the trees for vehicle access or just having a pedestrian trail, defining the boundaries and providing signage. Planning Commissioner Riedel stated that he would echo Park Chair Mangold and feels signage is important and they must be maintained as City property. Planning Commissioner Gorham stated that he remembers this fire lane being well maintained and looking nice so what would it mean to have the City maintain it. He asked if that meant getting rid of the encroachments. Planning Chair Maddy stated that he believes the idea is to maintain it in a way that a pedestrian could cross it without feeling like they are trespassing. Park Chair Mangold stated that he believes that this will involve eliminating encroachments. He reiterated that if this remains a Class 1 then it needs to be enforced and maintained the same way as all the other Class 1 fire lanes. Planning Commissioner Gorham stated that he believes there may be a small storage building located in the fire lane, so that encroachment would need to be removed. He stated that he believes "maintain it" is a very ambiguous direction. He stated that this one is already "maintained" and is being mowed. Park Chair Mangold stated that it may be a situation where the City has it on a schedule to be mown every two weeks and then the homeowner takes it upon themselves to mow it the week in between. He stated that the question becomes is the homeowner doing it as community service or is he making it his own property. Planning Commissioner Riedel stated that the rules prohibit private citizens from performing any improvements on the property. Planning Chair Maddy stated that he does not think mowing a lawn is an improvement, but would agree that putting a shed on the land would be an improvement. Park Commissioner Gallivan noted that because the City has not maintained the fire lanes, nearby residents have been forced to do it. Planning Director Darling stated that she believes the code states that there is not supposed to be any private maintenance of the public way. JOINT PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2021 PAGE 12 OF 21 Park Commissioner Garske stated that the City could set a basic standard of how it will be maintained and the code says that no one shall maintain it without approval by the City. He stated that if the City gave permission, the residents could, for instance, mow the area. Park Chair Mangold stated that would be a stretch of the Adopt a Garden program. He stated that the City had kept Fire Lane #2 for utility access, but will not be marked as a fire lane. He asked if this one was more that kind of classification as not really Class 1 but still being City access. He stated that in that case it would not be marked, but it would be retained and, in the future, could be changed back if needed. Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that he kind of likes that idea for both Fire Lane #4 and Fire Lane #5. Planning Commissioner Riedel asked if the Fire Chief or the DNR would have objections to this remaining City property, but not be classified as a fire lane with no further discussion about use. He asked what that would mean and whether the public could use it as an access point if it is not a fire lane. Planning Director Darling stated that they could but that would be even more of an uncomfortable situation for the residents that want to use it because it will appear even more as though it is private property. Planning Chair Maddy suggested that the City state that this will be minimally maintained and that a pedestrian trail be maintained from the waterfront to the street. Park Chair Mangold asked what the City was calling Fire Lane #2. Planning Chair Maddy stated that he believes that the only recommendation was that it was not needed as a fire lane and no action has been taken by the Council. Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that the recommendation was that there would be some signage that said it was City property for City use only for utilities or something similar. Planning Commissioner Gault stated that could be gated then if it was only needed for City staff to access. Planning Director Darling stated that would be tricky because there is a separate property that is beyond the City property in this location. She noted that she is not prepared with details and photos for Fire Lane #2 since there was not a plan to discuss that fire lane. Planning Chair Maddy stated that he does not think the group generally had the thought of gating the fire lanes. Park Chair Mangold stated that he thinks that Fire Lane #4 could be classified the same as whatever Fire Lane #2 is classified as because it is a full access point for the City. Planning Director Darling stated that it would be an unmaintained public right of way. Planning Commissioner Gorham stated that he believes the City would still have to go to the DNR in that instance. JOINT PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2021 PAGE 13 OF 21 Planning Director Darling stated that the City would not have to go to the DNR because they would not be vacating anything. Planning Chair Maddy stated that unmaintained is what got the City into this situation in the first place. Park Chair Mangold stated that he can get behind this being considered Class 1 and treating it as a Class 1. Planning Chair Maddy stated that would mean marking the boundaries and putting up signage but asked what kind of maintenance would be recommended. Park Chair Mangold stated that he believes there is a maintenance chart for different levels of parks, so he thinks that would be up to Public Works based on their chart. Planning Director Darling cautioned that if the Commissions decide to leave the maintenance to Public Works discretion, that will probably mean it will be maintained the same as its current condition. Planning Commissioner Gault stated that in many ways the fire lanes are mini -parks Park Chair Mangold noted that he cannot remember all the details of the different tiers for maintenance, but believes there are 5 tiers. Planning Chair Maddy suggested that the Commissions keep the discussion surrounding uses and not maintenance. Park Commissioner Garske stated that he believes the expectation should be very minimal maintenance regimen that will provide access to the lake. He stated that the fire lanes are not mini -parks. Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated when he visited the fire lanes 6 months ago there were a few that he could not have walked through to get to the lake without going on private property because so much brush and trees have grown on the fire lanes. He stated that he doesn't think it makes sense to do nothing and maintain it the same as its current condition. There was a Consensus of the Commissions to provide signage with hours of operation, define clear boundaries, and maintain the area for Fire Lane #4. Planning Commissioner Gorham asked if the Commissions should also recommend that the encroachments will be removed. Planning Chair Maddy stated that he believes that point goes without saying and that improvements that were not the cities should be removed. He asked if the Commission needed to explicitly say that private property cannot be stored on public property. Planning Director Darling agreed that it would be good to have some direction related to this fire lane. JOINT PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2021 PAGE 14 OF 21 There was a Consensus of the Commission that any private property on Fire Lane #4 shall be directed to be removed. Park Chair Mangold stated that he would like the Commission, as a group, be clear that any private property located in any of the fire lanes should be removed. There was a Consensus of the Commission that any private property located in any of the fire lanes should be removed. The Commission discussed the potential difference between private property and landscaping or vegetation that have been planted within the fire lane_ Mr. Blomquist stated that he feels the Commissions are inconsistent with who has property encroaching on fire lanes. He stated that he feels like they are allowing certain things but not allowing other things. Park Chair Mangold stated that he had just suggested that the Commission be clear that all private property located in any of the fire lanes should be removed, so that is consistent. Mr. Blomquist stated that it appears to him that Fire Lane #3 is supposed to be 25 feet wide and is down to about 7 feet and the Commissions are letting sheds and other things stay. Planning Chair Maddy stated that the Commissions have already stated that they will be addressing the encroachments and that will mean sheds and even landscaping in some areas of the fire lanes will have to be removed. Planning Commissioner Gault stated that he thinks the confusion may be coming from Planning Director Darling's statement that she had not contacted the adjacent homeowners with the need to remove their private property from the public land until it was resolved on whether or not the City was going to vacate the fire lane. He stated that the Commissions have now decided that they will not vacate any of the fire lanes, so now it will be appropriate for the City to move forward in addressing the encroachments on the fire lanes. There was additional Consensus that the Commissions feel that all private property on public right of way is to be removed. Fire Lane #5 Planning Director Darling gave a summary of the past discussion and information surrounding Fire Lane #5. Park Commissioner Garske asked how access used to be made to the lake since it is such a steep access point. Planning Director Darling stated that there had been some sort of steps at one time. She stated that is it a bit steep and property footwear would be needed in order to navigate the area. Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that this one is so overgrown you need to go onto private property in order to gain access to it. He stated that this one will require a significant amount of work in terms of maintenance and getting it cleared out. He suggested that this one should go to JOINT PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2021 PAGE 15 OF 21 the unmaintained public right of way and leave it as that. He noted that he does not think this one should have signage or boundaries marked. Planning Commissioner Gault suggested reclassifying this fire lane to a Class 1. He stated that he doesn't agree with the idea that the City should not spend money to maintain this and thinks this area has the most potential for a park -like usage. He stated that perhaps it could just be something like cutting a 3-foot walking path through the property. Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that the City should have been maintaining this and has not. He stated that there is a lot of work that would need to be done to this site and doesn't think there is really legitimate access to the lake. He stated that he is not opposed to doing the work but thinks the City needs to choose to really do the work to fully clean it up or take the unmaintained approach. Planning Commissioner Gault asked how the fire department would be able to use this if it was just left as is. Planning Director Darling stated that she assumes they would use it for observation. Planning Commissioner Gault stated that it appears as though they would need to use private property in order to get out there because it is so overgrown you cannot get through to access the lake. Planning Chair Maddy stated that the City could out a walking path through it Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that it looks like it will be significant work, but it will be one time work because then it will be maintained. He stated that if they cut a 3-foot path through there and then get it on a maintenance schedule and that will not be too hard. Park Commissioner Hirner asked if there really had been a dock in this location. Planning Director Darling stated that there had been a dock at one point, but not for 15 years or so. Park Commissioner Hirner stated that if the City cuts a walking path through the area, the dock may be something that reappears. The Commission discussed the possibility of a community dock being allowed in this location. Park Commissioner Garske stated that he is in favor of keeping the classification as a Class 3. Park Chair Mangold stated that he sees this fire lane as having more potential for future use than most of the other fire lanes. Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that the City needs to commit to doing the maintenance and also feels there will need to be a barrier at the top for safety purposes or putting in satisfactory stairs. He stated that he is not comfortable just putting in a half solution of kind of cleaning it up. JOINT PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2021 PAGE 16 OF 21 Planning Commissioner Gault stated that if the City is going to bring these fire lanes up to the level that they can be used, the City needs to be committed to doing the initial work and then to actually maintaining them. Park Commissioner Garske stated that because the embankment in this location is so steep, he feels some fencing may be needed in order to keep people from getting too close. He asked if that also meant the City needed to install stairs so there is actually lake access which may be very expensive. Planning Director Darling suggested installing a sign that states "No Access Beyond This Point". Planning Chair Maddy stated that he has been in many parks that have had some dangerous terrain and feels that you need to have some self -responsibility. Park Chair Mangold agreed that he does not think there is a huge liability issue here. He stated that he thinks this fire lane could be one that the City addresses piece by piece. He stated that they could just start by clearing out a place to walk so the fire department would have access to this as an observation point or to send up a drone. There was a Consensus that Fire Lane #5 be kept as Class 3, signage marking the fire lane, signage warning of the bluff, define clear boundaries, and maintain enough to get pedestrians to the bluff area for Fire Lane #5. Fire Lane #6 Planning Director Darling gave a summary of the past discussion and information surrounding Fire Lane #6. Park Chair Mangold asked if the City was maintaining anything at Crescent Beach. Planning Director Darling explained that most of the maintenance dollars at Crescent Beach go towards maintenance of the beach. Park Chair Mangold stated that he thought Tonka Bay had taken over all maintenance for this beach. Park and Recreation Director Grout confirmed that Tonka Bay does handle all the maintenance for Crescent Beach, but believes that the City contributes money towards those costs. Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that this drainage ditch is very important to the City and feels similar to Fire Lane #2. Planning Chair Maddy asked if there was any input from the public regarding this fire lane. Mr. Melnichek stated that he owns the property just west of the fire lane. He stated that he thinks there are some things that need to be clarified. He stated that he wants to make clear the boundaries of this fire lane and in its current state it cannot be used by anyone for any practical reason. He stated that all of the access is being used through Crescent Beach and nothing is going through the fire lane area. He stated that he is a former fire fighter, and does not agree with the Fire Chief that there is any practical use of the fire lanes within the City. He stated that JOINT PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2021 PAGE 17 OF 21 for emergency services or public service, they can go on private property in those situations. He stated that the fire lanes are not marked nor has there been any training and disagrees with the Fire Chief that the fire lanes are valuable assets. He stated that as a short-term resident of the City he feels they have consistently demonstrated an inconsistent enforcement of the City ordinance with regard to these fire lanes and has really contributed to or caused the mess that is in place today. He stated that he challenged the Commissions to rename the fire lanes to what they really are, which is public access to the lake. He stated that regarding Fire Lane #6, he has reached out to the City numerous times about maintaining it and until recently, when he spoke with Mayor Labadie, he has finally been told that this area will get some attention. He stated that the fire lane area is a complete mess and is an embarrassment for him. He stated that there are dead trees constantly falling on his property and even had a dead tree fall on one of his building structures last year. He stated that he is not allowed to maintain this area, but already has plans to do it in the spring for the safety of him and his pets, since the City has not had any enforcement. He stated that he doesn't understand the City's desire to hold so tightly to the fire lanes, but yet they have done nothing to maintain them. He asked the Commissions to abandon all the fire lanes because they serve no purpose. Planning Chair Maddy stated that he believe the Commissions agree with much of what Mr. Melnichek stated and are trying to move forward in a better path. Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that it this a drainage ditch and he believes it needs to be kept as that, but it needs to be maintained. He stated that he would suggest reclassifying it to the same as Fire Lane #2 that will be kept because of the utility access. He stated that he would agree with Mr. Melnichek that the City should probably call these public accesses and not fire lanes, except for Fire Lanes #2 and #6 because they are not public access. Park Chair Mangold asked if there was snowmobile access at this point and noted that he is not completely clear on what is happening with Tonka Bay at Crescent Beach. He stated that he would like to know what Tonka Bay's expectations are and noted that he feels the entire beach needs to have consistent rules and consistent enforcement. Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that he feels this area is unusable as a snowmobile access point. Planning Director Darling stated that she can have a conversation with Tonka Bay before this goes to City Council to clarify some of these issues. Planning Chair Maddy stated that he thinks that is a good idea and would like to see what Tonka Bay allows because if the City reclassifies this to something that does not allow snowmobiles, that may disallow snowmobiles to the entire beach. Park Chair Mangold stated that he agreed that the City needs to think about how this issue plays out with Tonka Bay and how this balances that situation. Planning Commissioner Riedel stated that he was out there yesterday and it appears as though the snowmobilers were driving right on the western boundary. He stated that he understands that this is a drainage ditch and is not a great access point, but some snowmobile drivers are aware of the regulations and are hitting the most western point which appears to be passable for snowmobiles. He stated that theoretically the drainage ditch could be improved or modified to actually allow snowmobile access in this location on the Shorewood side. JOINT PARK AND PLANNING COMNI1ISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2021 PAGE 18 OF 21 Planning Chair Maddy asked how many snowmobiles Mr. Melnichek heard or saw on a regular basis cutting through this area. Mr. Melnichek stated that there has been a bit less snowmobile traffic this year because of the thin ice and lack of snow. He stated that he would estimate 6-12 snowmobiles a day. He stated that he has seen more ice fishing traffic with people parking their cars and walking out to the ice. He stated that the reason snowmobilers are using the west side for access is because the dock and parking is on the other side. He stated that nobody is using the ditch for anything. He reiterated his request for the City to maintain the vegetation all along the ditch area. He stated that he would like the conversation to focus on the City's fire lane because Shorewood cannot do anything about Tonka Bay and reiterated his request that the City cleans this thing up. Park Chair Mangold stated that he thinks there is more to this fire lane than just the ditch. He stated that Tonka Bay is an active partner with the City and he believes everything the City has done has been to maintain and build upon that partnership and this would be another key element of that because we are small town neighbors. Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that he does not see the need to change the classification for this fire lane. He stated that it is clear that the City has to take care of it and what has been done recently has not been enough. Planning Commissioner Gault stated that could say that generally about all the fire lanes and suggested it be put forward to the Council that the City needs to properly maintain the fire lanes/public access points so they are usable for City residents. He stated that he thinks the Commission may need to word it strongly that every one of these fire lanes need to be maintained so it can be used as classified. Planning Commissioner Riedel stated that despite the fact that this meeting has been going on for 3 hours, it does not feel as though much has been accomplished. He stated that he is not in favor of changing the classification because it is a legitimate access point for snowmobiles. He asked if there was consensus that this should be the snowmobile access point for Shorewood and whether it should be maintained for that purpose. He stated that would mean maintaining or modifying the drainage ditch so there is a level area to the west of the ditch for snowmobile access. Park Chair Mangold stated that he would agree because the City has this access and needs to clean it up so it can be used for its proper use. There was Consensus of the Commissioners to retain Fire Lane #6 as a Class 2 Fire, install signage with hours of operations, establish boundaries, coordinate on snowmobile access with Tonka Bay, that the area be maintained and cleaned more frequently because of its proximity to the beach. Fire Lanes #7, #8, #9, and #10 Planning Chair Maddy stated that the Commissions will want to let the Council know that originally, they had recommended vacation of three of these fire lanes, but with the new information received regarding regulations, it makes sense for the City to sit on them until a future use is found. JOINT PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2021 PAGE 19 OF 21 Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that there should also be signage and maintenance for these fire lanes as well. Park Chair Mangold stated that he feels that would be another subclassification. He asked what the plan was for Fire Lane #2, and noted that he feels these four fire lanes should be treated the same. He noted that it has basically been decided that the City will keep them for utility and future use but not having them in the public access classes of fire lane. Planning Chair Maddy stated that he believes that is the recommendation since they will not be vacated. Planning Director Darling confirmed that the DNR will have the same position on the Lake William fire lanes as it does on the Lake Minnetonka fire lanes. Planning Chair Maddy stated that he would be more comfortable sitting on these fire lanes and seeing what happens once the City cleans up the ones discussed earlier tonight. He stated that he does not think the City needs to clean them all up in one fell swoop. Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that he is comfortable with keeping these as unmaintained public accesses because these from a maintenance standpoint are completely different. Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that he is having a hard time understanding why the City would maintain a fire lane such as Fire Lane #4 but not one on Lake William is the City is going to keep them. Planning Chair Maddy stated that there is a lot more traffic on Lake Minnetonka than there is on Lake William. He stated that he doesn't think that is saying that the City will not maintain these fire lanes in the future. Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that it appears as though the City could be vacating these fire lanes if it could get the approval from the DNR which does not appear likely. Park Chair Mangold stated that this is correct and the question now is, if the City is going to keep them, if they are interested in some kind of subclass that is not defined today or should these be the same as the Lake Minnetonka fire lanes. Planning Chair Maddy stated that is an interesting idea to create a fourth class that maintains it as City property, not let anyone store or build anything on it, but perhaps not mark it, make a pedestrian trail through it. Planning Commissioner Riedel stated that is basically what Fire Lane #2 is because the City has lots of little parcels of land that are owned by the City and are public, but there is no requirement to maintain them and is at staffs discretion. He stated that he feels that would be the easiest solution. Park Chair Mangold stated that he believes that they do all have maintenance requirements and are not just ignored, and gave an example of certain parcels that are just checked twice a year. Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that it is clear that the City needs to do a better job maintaining the Lake Minnetonka fire lanes and differentiating them helps. JOINT PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2021 PAGE 20 OF 21 Park Chair Mangold suggested that the Commissions look at this as a group that they are willing to keep, that they are not maintained currently because there is not high demand or a safety concern, but confirm this with the Fire Department that there is not a need to clear something out. Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that someone drowning on Lake William is just as important as someone drowning on Lake Minnetonka. Park Chair Mangold stated that he believes they have access right off of Minnetonka Boulevard, but that is the reason to ask the Fire Department that question and see if there would be a benefit to clearing any of these fire lanes for use. Park Commissioner Garske stated that he is of the opinion that the City should still attempt to vacate these fire lanes and communicate to the DNR that the City has no present or future use for the fire lanes. Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that he would agree. Planning Commissioner Gault stated that he also agreed. Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that he would also agree to that approach. Planning Chair Maddy stated that recommendation has already gone to the Council, so the Commissions can wait and see what the Council says with the new information about vacation. Planning Commissioner Eggenberger asked if there was any appetite to stop calling these "fire lanes" and call them lake access. He asked if there was any legal reason to keep the name fire lanes. Planning Director Darling stated that was something that was discussed at an earlier meeting and does not think there are any legal ramifications to that change. There was a Consensus of the Commissions to recommend that fire lanes be called Shorewood Public Lake Access. Park Chair Mangold asked if the Commission felt these should be shown on the City's Parks and Trail map of the City. There was Consensus of the Commissions to include the hre lanes/Public Lake Access on the City's Parks and Trails map. Mr. Melnichek stated that he just had a survey completed of his property which includes the fire lane information. He noted that it has been staked and marked out and clearly shows where it is located. He suggested that any of the interested Commission members come out to look at Fire Lane #6 because a portion of his house encroaches on it and would prevent there being a walkway built in the area. Planning Commissioner Gorham stated that he is concerned that the City has all these intentions and then there be a lack of execution. He stated that he would like to commit to this group meeting regularly, even if it is just once a year to revisit the success of what they are trying to accomplish. JOINT PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2021 PAGE 21 OF 21 Planning Chair Maddy stated that he likes that idea and asked for input from the other Commissioners. There was Consensus of the Commissions that they would like to see a Joint Park and Planning Commission meeting scheduled at least once a year. Planning Commissioner Gault stated that there has been a lot of discussion about maintenance and asked who will follow up to ensure that it is getting done as requested. He asked if that would be the responsibility of the Park Commission. Park Chair Mangold stated that their standard operating system in the park system is to outline generally what they would like to see done and then they ask for a progress update from Public Works. He stated that he assumes that they could also get a summary of where things are at with the fire lanes and that information could be added to the packets for both the Planning Commission and the Park Commission. He noted that once a year the Park Commission visits every park and questioned whether the fire lanes needed the Commissions to circle back and check on what City staff has done. Mayor Labadie thanked the Commissions for their work, time and effort to address this issue. She stated that she thinks they have been very thoughtful in their considerations tonight. She commended the Commissions for the respect they have shown each other throughout the meeting. Planning Director Darling explained that she would compile a written report for the Council based on the two joint meetings and separate meetings in November. 3. ADJOURN Planning Commissioner Riedel moved to adjourn the Joint Park and Planning Meeting of January 12, 2021 at 10:20 p.m. Park Chair Mangold seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Ayes — All. Motion carried 10-0. c � c o N C ai G N cc co W G � V o Low cnc��z da LL N U) N H € G' h O O a vi Op OaV p h O � c ph O O h O O EppV p ;• �• �, a c E O O O O O y N N N fa7 m en U ❑❑❑❑❑17 h h h H o V v C N c Z G7 fn N N N EO v O W L n ❑F-I Shorewood, MN Code of Ordinances CHAPTER 611 SNOWMOBILES Section 611.01 Definitions 611.02 Operation generally 611.03 Manner of operation 611.04 Equipment 611.05 Application of other laws 611.06 Persons under certain age 611.07 Leaving snowmobile unattended 611.08 Chasing animals forbidden 611.09 Littering and obstructions 611.10 Violations 611.01 DEFINITIONS. For the purpose of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply unless the context clearly indicates or requires a different meaning. BOULEVARD. That portion of a street right-of-way not occupied by pavement. LRT RIGHT-OF-WAY. That portion of the Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority right-of-way within the City of Shorewood commencing on the east at the City of Excelsior corporate boundary and extending west to the City of Victoria corporate boundary. LRT TRAIL. That portion of the LRT right-of-way maintained for the use of the public for nonvehicular purposes. OPERATE. To ride in or on and control the operation of a snowmobile. OPERATOR. Every person who operates or is in actual physical control of a snowmobile. ORGANIZED EVENT. An event sponsored and conducted by the Park Commission, the Chamber of Commerce, Jaycees, American Legion or similar Council -recognized civic groups or associations. OWNER. A person, other than a lienholder, having the property in or title to a snowmobile and entitled to the use or possession thereof. PERSON. Includes an individual, partnership, corporation and any body of persons, whether incorporated or not, the State of Minnesota and its agencies and political subdivisions, except this definition does not include police officers or duly authorized and uninformed snow patrol personnel in the performance of their duties. PLOW RIDGE. The bank of snow remaining at the side of the road after the plow has passed. RIGHT-OF-WAY. Any property established for the use of the public for street or highway purposes by any federal, state, county or local government, by dedication, gift or statutory use, whether developed or undeveloped, paved or unpaved. American Legal Publishing Corp. 33 Shorewood, MN Code of Ordinances SAFETY or DEADMAN THROTTLE. A device which, when pressure is removed fi•om the engine accelerator or throttle, causes the motor to be disengaged from the driving track. SNOWMOBILE. A self-propelled vehicle designed for travel on snow or ice or natural terrain steered by skis or runners. STREET or HIGHWAY. The entire width between boundary lines of any right-of-way or place when any part thereof is open to the use of the public, as a matter of right, for the movement of vehicular traffic. (1987 Code, § 802.01) 611.02 OPERATION GENERALLY. Subd. 1. A person may operate a snowmobile within the corporate limits of the city in only the following locations: a. Public waters as permitted by resolution of the LMCD or Shorewood City Council, but not closer than 150 feet to the shoreline except when entering or exiting the public waters traveling in a line perpendicular to the shoreline; b. On private property with the express permission of the property owner; C. On a right-of-way subject to the limitations set forth in this section; d. Such other locations and times as designated by resolution of the City Council for supervised training; e. A person operating a snowmobile in any part of the City of Shorewood except as provided herein shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Subd. 2. No person shall operate a snowmobile upon the roadway of any street or highway except for the purpose of direct travel from the person's home to the closest destination where snowmobiling is permitted by the shortest possible route and then only if travel on the adjacent street or highway right-of-way is restricted because of developed yards or physical barriers. Subd. 3. Persons may operate a snowmobile on the street side of the plow ridge and avoid obstacles by going into the street, not onto the boulevard. While traveling on streets, snowmobiles shall drive in the direction of traffic. Subd. 4. No person shall operate a snowmobile on the LRT trail or within the LRT right-of-way. Subd. 5. A snowmobile may make a direct crossing of a street or highway provided: a. The crossing is made at an angle of approximately 90 degrees to the direction of the street or highway and at a place where no obstruction prevents a quick and safe crossing; b. The snowmobile is brought to a complete stop before crossing the shoulder or main traveled way of the highway; C. The operator of the snowmobile must yield the right-of-way to all oncoming traffic; d. In crossing a divided street or highway, the crossing is made at an intersection of such street or highway with another public street or highway; e. The crossing is made with both front and rear lights illuminated. Subd. 6. Where no special hazard exists, the following speeds shall be lawful, and any speeds in excess shall be deemed unlawful: a. 10 miles per hour on public property within the city; American Legal Publishing Corp. 34 Shorewood, MN Code of Ordinances b. 10 miles per hour when operated on any public waters within the city closer than 150 feet to the shoreline. Subd. 7. No snowmobile shall enter any uncontrolled intersection without making a complete stop. The operator shall then yield the right-of-way to any vehicles or pedestrians. Subd. 8. Notwithstanding any prohibition in this chapter, a snowmobile may be operated on a public thoroughfare in an emergency during the period of time when snow upon such thoroughfare renders travel by automobile impractical. Subd. 9. An operator shall bring the snowmobile to a stop and switch off the engine when flagged by a police officer or duly authorized uniformed snow patrol member. (1987 Code, § 802.02) (Ord. 358, passed 10-25-1999) 611.03 MANNER OF OPERATION. Except as otherwise specifically permitted and authorized, it is unlawful for any person to operate a snowmobile within the limits of the city in the following manner: Subd. 1. At any place while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or narcotics or habit forming drugs; Subd. 2. At a rate of speed greater than reasonable or proper under all the surrounding circumstances. Racing is prohibited except as may be specifically authorized as part of an organized event, which authorization shall be by permit issued by the City Council. Maximum speed limits shall be set from time to time by Council resolution; Subd. 3. At any place in a careless, reckless or negligent manner so as to endanger the person or property of another or to cause injury or damage thereto; Subd. 4. So as to tow any person or thing except through use of a rigid tow bar attached to the rear of the snowmobile; Subd. 5. When the noise level of the snowmobile exceeds 78 decibels on the A Scale at a distance of 50 feet from the snowmobile; Subd. 6. At anytime within the city between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on Friday and Saturday, and between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on Sunday through Thursday; Subd. 7. At any time between the first of April and the thirtieth of November; Subd. 8. Abreast of another snowmobile except when overtaking and passing another snowmobile. No passing shall be allowed if a pedestrian is within 30 feet of the snowmobile; Subd. 9. On the LRT Trail. (1987 Code, § 802.03) (Ord. 358, passed 10-25-1999) Pcnalty, see § 104.01 611.04 EQUIPMENT. It is unlawful for any person to operate or for the owner to cause or knowingly permit the operation of a snowmobile any place within the limits of the city unless it is equipped with the following: Subd. 1. Standard mufflers which are properly attached and in constant operation and which reduce the noise of operation of the motor to the minimum necessary for operation. Mufflers shall comply with Minn. Rules part 6100.5700, subp. 5 which certifies that a new American Legal Publishing Corp. 35 Shorewood, MN Code of Ordinances snowmobile complies with the noise limitation requirements of this rule. A manufacturer shall make such a certification based on measurements made in accordance with the SAE Recommended Practice J 192(a) as set forth in the Report of the Vehicle Sound Level Committee, as approved by the Society of Automotive Engineers, September 1970 and revised November 1973; Subd. 2. Brakes adequate to control the movement of and to stop and hold the snowmobile under any conditions of operation; Subd. 3. A safety or deadman throttle in operating condition; Subd. 4. At least one clear lamp attached to the front, with sufficient intensity to reveal persons and vehicles at a distance of at least 100 feet ahead during the hours of darkness under normal atmospheric conditions. Such head lamp shall be so aimed that glaring rays are not projected into the eyes of an oncoming vehicle operator. It shall also be equipped with at least one red tail lamp having a minimum candle power of sufficient intensity to exhibit a red light plainly visible from a distance of 500 feet to the rear during the hours of darkness under normal atmospheric conditions. The lighting equipment shall be illuminated at all times the vehicle is operated; Subd. 5. Reflective material at least 16 square inches on each side, forward of the handlebars, so as to reflect or beam light at a 90 degree angle. (1987 Code, § 802.04) Penalty, see § 104.01 611.05 APPLICATION OF OTHER LAWS. City traffic ordinances shall apply to the operation of snowmobiles upon streets and highways and M.S. §§ 84.81 to 84.88 and M.S. Chapter 169, as amended, and except for those provisions relating to required equipment, are adopted by reference. (1987 Code, § 802.05) 611.06 PERSONS UNDER CERTAIN AGE. Subd. 1. It is unlawful for any person under 14 years of age to operate on streets, highways, public lands or frozen water or make a direct crossing of a street or highway as the operator of a snowmobile unless accompanied by a parent or guardian. A person 14 years of age or older, but less than 18 years of age, may operate a snowmobile on streets, highway, public lands or frozen waters as permitted under this section and make a direct crossing of a street or highway only if he or she has in his or her immediate possession a valid snowmobile safety certificate issued by the Commissioner of Natural Resources. Subd. 2. It is unlawful for the owner of a snowmobile to permit the snowmobile to be operated contrary to the provisions of this section. (1987 Code, § 802.06) Penalty, see § 104.01 611.07 LEAVING SNOWMOBILE UNATTENDED. American Legal Publishing Corp. 36 Shorewood, MN Code of Ordinances Every person leaving a snowmobile in a public place shall lock the ignition and remove the key from the snowmobile. (1987 Code, § 802.07) 611.08 CHASING ANIMALS FORBIDDEN. It is unlawful to intentionally drive, chase, run over or kill any animal, wild or domestic, with a snowmobile. (1987 Code, § 802.08) Penalty, see § 104.01 611.09 LITTERING AND OBSTRUCTIONS. Subd. 1. No person shall deposit paper, litter, rubbish or debris on public or private property or throw paper, litter, rubbish or debris from snowmobiles. Subd. 2. No person shall place obstructions, including ice blocks, on publicly -owned lands or frozen waters so as to interfere with the lawful use thereof by the public. Subd. 3. All traffic control devices used for routing snowmobile traffic away from private and public property shall be located on the same private or public property and shall be in place no earlier than November 1 and shall be removed on or before April 15. (1987 Code, § 802.09) 611.10 VIOLATIONS. Any person violating the provisions of this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor. (1987 Code, § 802.10) (Ord. 245, passed 10-28-1991; Ord. 280, passed 10-11-1993; Ord. 296, passed 1-23-1995; Ord. 314, passed 10-14-1996) Penalty, see § 104.01 American Legal Publishing Corp. 37 Section 1201.03 of the Shorewood Zoning Regulations Subd. 19. Fire lanes. a. Purpose. Recognizing that all fire lanes are to provide lake access to the public, this subdivision is established to identify, classify and regulate the use thereof based upon their historic use within the city. b. Use classifications. The use of fire lanes in Shorewood shall be restricted to one of the following classifications: (1) Class I may be used for pedestrian access to the lake, fishing from shore, launching canoes and other small boats not requiring a trailer and cross-country skiing; (2) Class II may be used for all of the activities as designated in Class I except fishing, as well as snowmobile access during the winter, parking and swimming; (3) Class III may be used only for pedestrian access to the lake, fishing, launching canoes and other small boats not requiring a trailer. In addition, a single dock may be installed subject to the following: (a) The person or group of persons installing the dock shall be Shorewood residents and apply for an annual building permit prior to installation of the dock; (b) The total length of the dock shall not exceed 25 feet; (c) The dock shall be installed by a professional installer and maintained in a safe and workmanlike manner; (d) The use of the dock shall be for the general public and shall not be limited to use by those who install it; (e) Docking of boats shall be limited to daytime hours only between sunrise and sunset; (f) The dock shall comply with all requirements of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District. C. Designation offire lanes. The following fire lanes shall be identified on the Official Zoning Map and shall be classified as follows: (1) Class I: ] -Enchanted Island, 2-Shady Island, 3-Grant Lorenze, 4- Third Street, 7-Ferncroft, 8-Ivy Lane, 9-Rustic Way South, 10-Rustic Way North; (2) Class 11: 6-Crescent Beach; (3) Class III: 5-Eureka. d. General regulations. (1) Fire lanes shall be used only for the activities provided for in subdivision b above. No sporting activities shall be allowed which involve thrown objects such as catch, softball, baseball, frisbee, volleyball or football. (2) Fire lanes shall be subject to the rules and regulations contained in Shorewood Ordinance 140, as may be amended, (Chapter 902) pertaining to the use of city parks, including, but not limited to, use of intoxicating beverages. (3) Maintenance and improvements of fire lanes shall be the sole responsibility of the city. No one shall maintain or make improvements, except as modified herein, without the approval of the City Administrator/Clerk or his or her agent. (4) Except in Class II fire lanes, there shall be no parking of automobiles, boat trailers or snowmobiles on or adjacent to any of the fire lanes identified herein. (5) Except for snowmobiles in Class II fire lanes, motorized vehicles shall be prohibited on fire lanes. (6) Lots with side yards abutting fire lanes shall provide a total of 30 feet of side yard setback with no one side being less than ten feet. Marie Darling From: Melia Liester <tmliester@mchsi.com> Sent: Monday, January 4, 2021 8:12 PM To: Marie Darling Subject: Fire Lane Study (Birch Bluff Road Fire Lane #3) Dear Members of Shorewood City Council and Planning and Park Commissioners This email is regarding the upcoming planning commission meeting on 1/12/21 and the fire lane study. I've attended the last two planning commission meetings where this topic has been discussed, and I will be attending on 1/12 as well, but I wanted to provide the council some context as to where I, and several other Shorewood/Birch Bluff/Grant Lorenz/Oak Ridge Circle/Noble Road residents, are on this topic. What I/we would like to convey is that the residents of Shorewood involved in this matter represent the voice of many vs. the voice of a few who are unhappy with fire lane #3. We have all had access, by snowmobile, or ATV, for as long as we all have lived here, and the majority of us have lived here over 25 years. Basically, there is one party who is asking to have this fire lane restricted to foot traffic only, as you know. Ultimately, we propose that the fire lane #3 be amended to a Class 11 Firelane continuing the access we've for over the past 25+ years. Last year, the city blocked the fire lane, while they assessed the situation. We propose a trial option for the winter of 2021; that being limited hour access to snowmobiles and ATVs and posted speed limits, similar to what Tonka Bay allows. Please see the attached photo taken at the Bay Road access near Manitou road. Everyone is sensitive to the fact that there are two homes that border this fire lane, and that it is reasonable to ask for some restrictions. But to completely change what's been allowed for several years based on the request of one resident, without considering viable options implemented in neighboring lake communities, seems unreasonable. We all live in Shorewood for various reasons, but a primary reason is the small town feel, the sense of community and access to Lake Minnetonka! We want to be able to use the "shore" and the "woods" as we've been accustomed to for so many years. We seek a reasonable solution that provides reasonable access to the states top recreational lakes. I appreciate the City of Shorewood and staffs time and consideration. Tim Liester 26355 Oak Ridge Circle Marie Darling From: Melia Liester <tmliester@mchsi.com> Sent: Monday, January 4, 2021 8:14 PM To: Marie Darling Subject: Photo of fire lane in Tonka Bay per email just sent Hi Marie, I couldn't attach this photo for some reason, so here's the fire lane photo referenced in the email we just sent. Thanks! Tim Liester 91 .... ..... . M-00a mall 0,10 Michael S. Rosenberg MD Sagit V. Rosenberg MD 4595 Enchanted Point Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 September 17, 2020 City of Shorewood Planning and Park Commissioners Greg Lerud, City Administrator Marie Darling, Planning Director Shorewood City Hall 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 RE: Fire lane 1 Dear Commissioners, Administrator, and Director: We are the property owners of 4595 Enchanted Point (hereafter, "4595") adjacent to Fire lane 1 in the City of Shorewood and would like to include comments regarding the uses allowed in that fire lane. Thank you for directing us to the packet on the City website in preparation for the Planning Commission meeting held on September 1, 2020 at 7:00 pm. In the packet, made first available on Friday, August 28, 2020, we reviewed the letter sent by the Commodore of the Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club Marina, John E. Grzybek, dated January 15, 2019. In Mr. Grzybek's letter, there are a number of misstatements of fact regarding the adjacent fire lane that we wish to clarify. First, we moved into the adjacent property over 17 years ago and have since been regularly cleaning and maintaining the area of the fire lane. This has involved cleaning pre-existing trash including an old wheelbarrow, dock pieces, an old hose, and cinderblocks. Since our ownership of 4595 in May 2003, we have also performed regular maintenance of the grounds such as watering with the pre-existing underground sprinklers, fall and spring clean-up, mowing the lawn and cleaning up storm debris. The landscaping boulders and pine trees in the fire lane existed prior to our purchase of this property. The "weeds" on the fire lane, which the Commodore is referring to, was a wall of natural beauty with yellow and lavender hollyhocks, sumac and wild grape vines that were unilaterally mowed down and killed with Round Up by the Yacht Club under the direction of the current Commodore over the last 2 or 3 years leaving thorns, thistles and poison ivy (Exhibit A and B). This was apparently for the purpose of exerting some self-serving claim that they have maintained that property for potential territorial gain when in actuality their actions have been to the detriment of the neighborhood and the general public. At our meeting with Marie Darling, Greg Lerud, and Katriona Filipovitich Molasky regarding the adjacent fire lane, on January 22, 2020, we showed photos of the natural greenery and flowers as well as the landscaping which was present in the fire lane prior to the purchase of our property in May 2003. Approximately 3 years ago, erosion of the shoreline and subsequent flooding extending from the fire lane into our property carried with it large amounts of debris and dead fish. We repaired the extensive damage to the area. This included replacing some of the destroyed sod in the fire lane that pre -dated the purchase of our property, added a small area of rip rap and sand to preserve the shoreline and prevent further erosion and flooding, and continued to mow the lawn in order to make the area more safe and accessible. We were further dismayed by the Commodore's letter noting "[we have] explored selling [our] home, using photographs of the improvements [we] made on City property, as what appears to be an incentive for potential purchasers." Neither we nor our professional real estate agent have ever misrepresented the boundaries of our property to potential buyers and there are appropriate disclosures regarding the fire lane. This calls into question the Commodore's integrity and the general veracity of his statements --especially when considering his prior disbarment from the State of Minnesota for numerous instances of unethical, dishonest and inappropriate behavior, including misappropriation of client funds and failure to follow court orders. It is our belief that the Yacht Club, which started off as a sailing club, has repeatedly tried to change our quiet residential neighborhood by expanding their commercial business. Over the years, they have challenged their conditional use permit, expanding it from "sailboats" to "boats" allowing the addition of several moored power boats transforming their sailing club to a marina. This altered the character of the area from a quiet residential neighborhood to a busy commercial entity. This impact on the adjacent neighbors was significant enough to pursue repeated legal action (see Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club v. City of Shorewood in MN Court of Appeals in July 2009). In his letter, the Commodore references a letter sent 2 years prior expressing their desire to "lease or purchase" what they called the "wasted property" of the fire lane as it would "add to the City's tax base". Now, they are offering to provide lockable storage racks for "personal watercraft" which further exemplifies the Yacht Club's ambition to manipulate this land for the expansion of their own commercial goals, contrary to current residential zoning. It is reasonable to assume that the use of the storage racks, and for that matter the fire lane land in general, will be primarily for the benefit of their own patrons. We wish to make the following points clear: 1. We would like our neighborhood to remain a quiet residential neighborhood as it is currently zoned. We respectfully request to continue the classification of Fire Lane 1 as Class 1 and NOT expand commercial use of the adjacent Yacht Club to include more motor boat noise, especially with the addition of personal watercraft. 2. If the fire lane land adjacent to our property is abandoned by the City, is for lease or for sale, then we should have equal access to any transaction as we would be interested in acquiring the property as well. Finally, we are attaching copies of our email to the City and the City's response following our meeting regarding the adjacent fire lane, at the City Hall on January 22, 2020 demonstrating our cooperation with the City's requests (Exhibit C). At that meeting, we also offered to remove at our own expense 1 or 2 of the boulders that pre -date our purchase of 4595 in order to allow public access through the landscaped portion of the fire lane. The City instructed us to await further recommendation of the Planning Committee and City Council. We remain ready and willing to continue to cooperate with the City. Incidentally, contrary to our compliance, the Yacht Club continues to store a boat lift on the fire lane property (please see Exhibit D). We appreciate City of Shorewood support in preserving current Fire Lane 1 classification and appeal to the Yacht Club to also respect the residential nature of our neighborhood. Thank you for your attention in this matter. Sincerely, Dr. Michael S. Rosenberg, MD, FSIR, FACR U Dr. Sagit V. Rosenberg, MD ki 1 � oa, �• �,� w 4_' , "•, d r. 41 t ' to EXHIBIT C Monday, August 31, 2020 at 20:34:14 Central Daylight Time Subject: RE: Follow up to our 1/22/20 meeting Date: Monday, January 27, 2020 at 8:08:53 AM Central Standard Time From: Greg Lerud To: Michael Rosenberg, Marie Darling, Katriona Molasky Attachments: image002.jpg Mr. and Mrs. Rosenberg, Thank you for your email. Your email arrived before I was able to complete a summary letter, and your email accurately summarizes our meeting. We will let you know as soon as we are able to schedule a site visit for the parks and planning commission, which we anticipate will be in April. Following that meeting we will have some direction about the future plans for the city -owned property. Regards, Greg Greg Lemd, City Administrator City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 p:952-960-7905 From: Michael Rosenberg<michaelsagit.rosenberg@comcast.net> Sent: Monday, January 27, 202012:45 AM To: Marie Darling <MDarling@c1.shorewood.mn,us>; Greg Lerud <GLerud@ci.shorewood.mn.us>; Katriona Molasky <KMolasky@ci.shorewood.mn.us> Subject: Follow up to our 1/22/20 meeting Dear Marie, Greg and Katriona: Thank you for meeting with us on Wednesday, January 22, 2020 regarding clarification of City of Shorewood requirements with respect to the fire lane bordering our property on 4595 Enchanted Point. As you requested, we will proceed with moving the underground sprinklers and the two boat lifts in the spring, once the weather permits. In addition, as we agreed and per your suggestion, we look forward to meeting with City of Shorewood Page 1 of 2 EXHIBIT C (Cont) representatives on site to discuss any further requested modifications to the grounds within the context of the City's future plans for that area. We kindly appreciate advanced notice of the anticipated date and time of the site visit so we can coordinate. Please send any future correspondence regarding this or other matters to our home address in Eagan listed below. Sincerely, Michael and Sagit Rosenberg 4187 Amberleaf Trail Eagan, MN 55123 Cell: 651-387-3566 Page 2 of 2 EXHIBIT C (Cj 'CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 Country Club Road . Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 952.960.7900 * www.ci.shorewood.mn.us January 23, 2020 Michael and Sagit Rosenberg 4595 Enchanted Point Shorewood, MN 55331 Mr. and Ms. Rosenberg, Thank you for taking the time to come to City Hall and meet with us regarding the fire lane next to your property at 4595 Enchanted Point. it was valuable to have everyone together to discuss the situation as It stands and next steps in the process. You will be required to relocate the boat lift and any personal Items within the fire lane property to your personal property. This can be done any time between now and May 1, 2020. You will also be required to cap the sprinkler system at the property line. Currently the sprinkler system extends into the fire lane and the line must be terminated at the property line. This work must be completed by June 1, 2020. The City will be doing to visits to all of the fire lanes in April with the Park and Planning Commissions. These meetings will be public and you are welcome to attend. They will be visiting the fire lane next to your property and will discuss next steps in regards to the use and necessary landscaping. Next steps in regards to landscaping will be determined after this visit, These discussions may result in new orders to move other private improvements. At the meeting it was also discussed that you are selling this property. You must disclose the improvement the property line to any new buyer. If there is anything in this letter that you feel does not represent your understanding of what was discussed at the meeting, please let us know so we can clarify to make sure we are all on the same page with this matter moving forward. Katriona Filipovitch Molasky Planning Technician Marie Darling From: Michael Blomquist <mike@mikeydidit.com> Sent, Tuesday, January 15, 2019 10:06 AM To: Planning Cc: Michael Blomquist Subject: Fire Lane At Grant Lorenz and Birch bluff I would like to ask that this fire lane be reclassified to a Class II allowing vehicles such as snowmobiles and 4- wheeler to access the lake in winter. I believe the fire lane is currently being misused by the homeowner who lives next to the fire lane. This is the same homeowner who posted signs on the fire lane last winter trying to block others from using the fire lane. Throughout the year, this homeowner uses the fire lane to park vehicles. I am attaching images of many different instances of this occurring. I am not interested in getting in a fight with neighbors, but this homeowner yelled at me last winter for trying to access the lake on a 4-wheeler, which is something that I and many others have always done. At the same time, he has no problem with others parking in the fire lane. The fire lane access to the lake is one of the reasons I moved to this area. I use the lake all year long, boating in summer and ice fishing in winter. I do not want to see this fire lane closed off from it's traditional use because of one resident. Thank you for your time and consideration of this issue. Thank you, Mike Blomquist '�'rwP t { 'Y li 1 h � {liW�;.w ,�,� fy�y�' � x ��'P, s6 �„ n� �` J � K,( �� n1��,6 � � � Y � f. a:,. �., . .�� L,, i � }.'� �I J � ,. C � �� ,_ r.._K V �r�;�., ;;, � �y�is4 ��, • ,:„ Ilk R Google _ R�EIyEp or JAN 15 2019 1-2 17Y OF SHOSIJFVVO The best litde sailing and boating —�= Club on Lake Nfu=tonka. John E. Grzybek Commodore, Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club 730 Winslow Avenue Saint Paul, Minnesota 55107 (651) 592-0945 (cell phone) 15 January Tuesday 2019 Via E Mail City of Shorewood Planning and Park Commissioners Through Greg Lerud, City Administrator Shorewood City Hall 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota Re: Fire Lanes as Abandoned Property; Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club Comments; Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club Marina, 4580 Enchanted Point Dear Commissioners: Introduction I am the Commodore of the Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club ("UMYC"). I understand that you are taking comments regarding fire lane properties within the City of Shorewood. I am submitting this letter as the UMYC's public comment. Unfortunately, because of an ouvof--town conflict I am unable to appear personally before you. However, if you have any follow up questions I will be more than happy to respond either in writing or m person. I am grateful that you are evaluating fire lane property and what the City could do with it. I recognize that the UMYC's request about two years ago to explore acquiring or leasing the vacated fire lane property located at our marina may have started this process, thus, my comments are related to our self -interests. I do not know the extent of the amount of fire lane property the City of Shorewood may have in its possession, but to evaluate what the City has in its inventory and what should become of that property as a matter of public policy is a wise decision. General Policy Suggestion; Next Best Use of Abandoned, Wasted City Property As a matter of general policy, I would suggest that once existing fire lane property is evaluated, and determined to be of no use to the City for positive public use and has essentially been abandoned by the City, it is "wasted" property and should be made available for its next best use, if any. The property could be leased or purchased. This would include use by private parties who could prevent any further "waste" to its value. It would also decrease the City's liability exposure related to the City's abandonment of that property. The fire lane property adjacent to our marina is a case in point. UMYC Experience With Fire Lane Property at its Marina The UMYC marina is located at 4580 Enchanted Point. At the southern most point of our property, is fire lane property that extends to the Upper Minnetonka Lake. See Exhibit A attached. Approximately two years ago, I approached the City of Shorewood to explore the possibility of acquiring that small and narrow piece of fire lane property located immediately south of our marina property. For all tends and purposes, it has been "wasted" by the City and abandoned. On the City fire lane property we inquired about, the UMYC has spent hundreds of dollars to clean that land because it had become wasted by the City. Neighbors (witnessed) had throw debris —leaves, tires, cut branches, a swing set, hose, concrete, and the like, that had accumulated for years. Because the overgrowth became so untenably to the UMYC and a potential hazard, I directed the cleanup at our expense. I was shocked at what we found. Countless volunteer hours were spent to clean up the abandoned, vacate property and now continue efforts to control the overgrowth. We continue to cut the weeds and gather dead -wood and debris, now only occasionally found, throughout our sailing and boating season, again, at our expense. Regardless, this property was long been forgotten by the City —abandoned, vacated, and wasted —and of no use to the City. Why is it of no use? Because this particular piece of fire lane property is narrow and can not be converted to any feasible public use. For instance, placing a public ramp for access to the lake is not practicable because there is too limited an area to park cars or trailers. Even if converted to a public park, it is limited to the amount of vehicles that could park. Moreover, to do a conversion of use would cause grave concerns about safety and security issues to the residential neighborhood and the marina. At the present time, the fire lane itself, although reaching to the lake, physically ends at the driveway of another private party's property located at 4595 Enchanted Lane. Although everything to the northeast and east of the lane is "fire lane property" and therefore City property, the owners of 4595 Enchanted Lane have significantly encroached on that City property. The owners have planted grass, created a sand beach, and have — without a permit —placed rip -rap on the shoreline. Five years ago, the UMYC stopped the owner from placing rip -rap all along the shoreline to the southern boundary of our marina property, and has abandoned that course of action. The owner had no permit of any kind. While I understand the owners do improvements on City property at their own risk, I find the treatment of the City to these property owners and our desire to acquire or lease the fire lane property places us at a distinct disadvantage. We've been working with City officials through proper channels while that owner has used the fire lane as his own. With that, the property owner has explored selling his home, using photographs of the improvements he made on City property, as what appears to be an incentive for potential purchasers. See Exhibit B attached. Policy; Lease or Purchase of Abandoned Fire Lane Property The City should consider that if the lands are of no public use because of their configuration and are abandoned and determines the vacated lands of no use, it should allow interested parties to acquire those lands or lease the property. It would help the City. With the UMYC for instance, we have taken it upon ourselves to service the land by keeping it from further becoming a hazard and dumping grounds others created. Hence, by our actions, City liability has been minimized. However, the UMYC is under no obligation to continue this generosity. If leased, an agreement could be crafted to ensure the lands are not wasted and kept in good order. If allowed to purchase, at a reasonable price, it would add to the City's tax base. Invitation to Visit UMYC Marina and Fire Lane Property If you have any questions regarding my statements, please contact me. Further, if you would like to visit our marina and physically see the fire lane property at issue, I would be happy to.escort any City official through the site. Thank you for allowing me to offer this statement. I hope to attend anyfuture public hearing on this matter, if future hearings are scheduled. Sincerely, John E: lore,Lhzper m etonk) yacht Club .U81HX3 is g 44 i t MLab . i'"`� ♦,ul rA •tiA; . a, J January 15, 2019 Ms. Marie Darling City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN. 55331 Re: Fire lane access to lakes. Dear Marie, I am writing to express my concern regarding fire lane access to lakes. I am a resident of Shorewood and use the Class II fire lanes for snowmobile access to access the lake. Snowmobiling is currently allowed on city streets currently and our only access to the lake is the Class II fire lane. I am against altering the city code regarding use of the fire lanes for vehicle access. Please keep my updated on city staff recommendations and any proposed changes to Subd. 19. Fire lanes. Sincerely, A�a* RECEIVED Martin Woody JAN 15 2019 CITY OF SHOREWOOD �liDreW�i %A-) 5533/ Marie Darling From: Robert Milstein <robert@milstein.com> on behalf of connieandrob@milstein.com Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2019 5:41 PM To: Planning Subject: RE: Workshop on Fire Lanes January 15 Planning & Parks Commissions, We are unable to attend the workshop tonight, but learned of this discussion and how it relates to the fire lane at the lake end of Grant Lorenz Rd (nearest our house). Despite living in Shorewood for just five years, we were well aware of this convenient public lake access. Further, we were aware that it was the primary access to the lake for snowmobilers in our area, and we were very surprised when we learned that snowmobile access through that fire lane is prohibited by the city. Because of this, we wanted to share a few short thoughts: Safety First: Fire lanes should by nature never be blocked, which rules out any consideration of use for parking or storage at any time. - Maintenance Second: Any use of the fire lanes that would cause an unacceptable maintenance expense deserves careful review — we're talking about taxes here. Reasonable Use Third: For ALL of the fire lanes, especially the one on Grant Lorenz, reasonable use should be strongly considered (bearing in mind the above two points). Clearly, reasonable use includes walking in/out, including portage. In addition, history has shown that reasonable use has apparently also always included snowmobile access. With regard to officially permitting snowmobile access, this is a situation where: - There are no signs about it (so it's no surprise no one knew it was prohibited) - No one we have discussed this with is aware of anyone ever having been confronted in the past (by neighbors nor the City) (so history has supported this use) - it's during a season when windows are closed (so noise from the snow mobiles wouldn't be an issue) - The ground is frozen (so maintenance costs for this use do not exist) - And it's public land It's hard to imagine why it would come up for discussion to start enforcing the rule, but given history and the notes above, we strongly support an update that allows snowmobile access to the lake through the fire lane at least on Grant Lorenz. Best, Robert & Connie Milstein Marie Darling From: Jeff Wyatt <wyattjeffreya@gmail.com> Sent Tuesday, January 15, 2019 6:28 PM To: Planning Subject Fire lane access in Shorewood Please rezone the Grant Lorenz Road fire lane to officially allow snowmobile access to Lake Minnetonka. Crescent Beach access is not sufficient as sole access as there is a conflict between the City of Shorewood and the City of Tonka Bay ordinances. While snowmobiles are allowed to access Lake Minnetonka from Crescent Beach on the City of Shorewood side of the beach, they are prohibited from accessing the lake on the City of Tonka Bay side of the beach. This nuance could make it confusing and difficult for snowmobile operators to follow the law and requires duplicative enforcement efforts. The Grant Lorenz Road is a safe access for riders. Grant Lorenz Road is a long and straight road with two bright streetlights, one right before the fire lane. The access at Crescent Beach requires riders to go up and down several hills and around several comers on public roadway if they have to bypass Grant Lorenz Road. In particular, the corner at Grant Lorenz Road and Birch Bluff road is a blind corner and having more snowmobiles rounding this corner is a safety hazard. The Grant Lorenz Road fire lane is wide enough for riders as well. The fire lane at Grant Lorenz Road has traditionally been used as a snowmobile access for many years without incident and has created a reasonable expectation The homeowner adjacent to the Grant Lorenz Road fire access has been posting home-made signs on the fire lane saying that motorized vehicles are not allowed. However, all throughout the year, there are often vehicles parked in this fire lane related to either his or other construction projects occurring nearby. By trying to restrict some traffic from using the fire lane and simultaneously using the fire lane as a personal parking spot, this homeowner is trying to make the fire lane part of his personal property. This is not fair to the public who pay for the use of this fire lane as residents of the City of Shorewood and sets a dangerous precedent. While there are actually two other fire lanes between Grant Lorenz Road and Crescent Beach, one at the end of Eureka Road and one about six houses down from Grant Lorenz Road at what appears to be called "Third Street" on some maps, neither of these fire lanes is maintained and cannot be located easily from the road. Neither would be a reasonable option for snowmobile access. For all of these reasons, the fire lane at Grant Lorenz Road should be rezoned to officially allow snowmobile access during the winter. Respectfully submitted, Jeff Wyatt 5335 Eureka Rd Shorewood, MN Marie Darling From: John Arnst <john@arnst.net> Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2019 6:50 PM To: Marie Darling Cc: sdavis@ci.shorewood.mn.us Subject: Fire Lane Comments FIRE LANES JOINT WORK SESSION COMMENTS FOR CONSIDERATION: Fire Lanes Should be Pedestrian/Passive use Only. ( No Motorized Use ) Examples of such use: Canoe, Kayak, Paddle Board, Shoreline Fishing, Swimming, Pedestrian access to ice Neighboring encroachment Issues should be addressed and monitored All Fire Lane Boundaries should be Identified with Markers and Signage, Identifying them as such. Fire lanes should be treated as "linear parks" operating under the same rules and ordinances as the city parks ( No alcohol, loud music, curfew, no motorized vehicles, leash laws etc. ) with appropriate signage for enforcement. 1 10 January 2019 To: City of Shorewood From: Mark Bongard 26260 Birch Bluff Road Re: Fire Lane Access — Birch Bluff/Grant Lorenz To Whom It May Concern: I am the homeowner directly adjacent to the west of the Birch Bluff and Grant Lorenz Fire Lane. We are a fairly new resident, building the home and moving into that location in August 1017. Prior to acquiring the property, we spoke with the previous homeowner, the real estate agent and the City of Shorewood in person to learn and discuss the Fire Lane. It was expressed to me that it is a non -motorized access point for the public for members of the community to access Lake Minnetonka for Canoeing, paddle boarding, swimming, shore fishing and the like. It was said by all the parties we spoke with that it is quite a quiet and low usage location. And if we experience any abuse by motorized vehicles, we can contact the city or local police and they would work to eliminate the problems. So, we went forward with the purchase of the property in 2015. It took two years to design and build the current residence. During that time, we had seen and experienced many signs that people were driving motorized vehicles down the fire lane both winter and summer. We chalked it up to the fact no one was living on the property during the construction phase and we made no mind of the activity and made no complaints assuming upon our occupancy, people would take heed and discontinue their inappropriate usage. After moving into the home, to our dismay, the activity did not stop. Since it was late summer and the activity really only occurred during the day, we let it go. Once winter began and the ice was safe, we had a huge increase in usage by motor vehicles: Snowmobiles, ATV's, trucks, jeeps, trailered fish houses and motor cycles with spiked tires. Here in lies the difficulty for us, the usage happens all hours of the day and night. Engines revving, lights flashing into our home. As the winter progressed, the access became rutted and heaved from ice shifts and users would have to use more power to get over the humps or out of the ruts. Our home layout is such that our bedrooms are all on the western end of the property nearest the fire lane. The noise and lights become very loud and bright while you try to sleep. We are awakened several times a night and several nights a week. It has become very annoying and difficult to get restful sleep along with the frustration that individuals know they are using the fire lane inappropriately and without concern as to the impact on our lives. I realize this is a democratic process and all sides must get their time and chance to express their wants and wishes for the use of public property, but in consideration, you should be concerned for those most negatively affected by these types of decisions. For our family, shifting the use from a pedestrian usage to a limited use motorized access point is and will be a hardship for us. Not only will it continue to negatively impact our enjoyment of the lake, but also our health and well-being. Not to mention, it may also have consequence to us on an economic level, should this lane shift to allowing motorized usage, it will likely have repercussions to us in the future marketability and de -valuation of the sale of our property. As for us doing our Due Diligence prior to purchasing, we certainly would not have bought or built a home on this site, and at the very least, we would not have designed the home with sleeping quarters nearest the access knowing what we now have experienced. Thank you for your time and service effort into this matter. Mark Bongard Marie Darling From: Susan Anacker <anackerjohnson@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 7, 2019 10:01 AM To: Planning Subject: Comments on Fire Lanes Thanks for addressing the question of fire lanes! 1 use the fire lane at the end of Grant Lorenz Road. It must be Fire Lane 3. Also FL 6 next to Cresant Beach. I use the fire lane for access to walk, bike, swim, kayak, canoe, ice skate. I'd like to continue to do this. It is part of what makes Shorewood such a great place to live! I don't snowmobile but I believe this is a good use of fire lanes . I was concerned when a new owner took control of the property bordering the firelane. Signs were posted about limiting access for snowmobiles. I was confused as these didn't appear to be City signs but private. (were they? Does the city permit snowmobiles? ) This new neighbor also has much vegetation right on the trail .. I worry his arborvitae will block the trail. It would also help if fire lanes were marked, so we know that it is OK to access the lake at these points. Some are obvious some are not. Thanks for the help? Susan Anacker 26915 Noble Rd Marie Darting From: Gillian Blomquist <gillian@wbfamilylaw.com> Sent: Monday, January 14, 2019 8:36 PM To: Planning Subject: Fire Lane Ordinances Dear Planning Commission: I am writing to you regarding the issue of the reclassification of fire lanes in the City of Shorewood. Last year, my husband and I had cause to consider this issue when our use of the fire lane at the end of Grant Lorenz Road was questioned by a new homeowner whose property is adjacent to the fire lane. As long as we have resided here, that fire lane had been used for snowmobile and 4-wheeler access in the winter and as a kayak launch in the summer. After a big snowfall event, we often see snowmobilers riding down Grant Lorenz to access the lake. In the summer, we often see kayakers walking down Grant Lorenz to use the fire lane. We love that we are so close to the lake and thought it was fun to see all residents making use of the lake. But one evening when my husband was finishing plowing snow in our driveway, he drove the 4-wheeler onto the lake. He was greeted by the new neighbor who lives next to the fire lane with angry yelling stating that he wasn't allowed to access the lake there. This neighbor had also posted home-made signs on the fire lane stating that motor vehicles were not allowed. This interaction, which was very unpleasant and upsetting, began our interest in the issue of how fire lanes are supposed to be used and how they should be used in our city. In our research, we discovered that the City of Shorewood only has one fire lane that technically allows access to the lake, namely Crescent Beach. However, there are many reasons why the Crescent Beach access should not be the designated snowmobile access to the lake. First, as the city ordinance currently stands, there is a conflict between the City of Shorewood and the City of Tonka Bay. While snowmobiles are allowed to access Lake Minnetonka from Crescent Beach on the City of Shorewood side of the beach, they are prohibited from accessing the lake on the City of Tonka Bay side of the beach. This makes it hard for snowmobilers to follow the law depending on which part of the beach they cross into the lake. Second, as I stated above, the fire lane at Grant Lorenz Road has traditionally been used as a snowmobile access. When speaking to most neighbors, particularly those who have lived in the neighborhood for years or decades, they are surprised to hear that Grant Lorenz Road is not technically already a snowmobile access because this is how the fire lane has been traditionally used. Third, the Grant Lorenz Road is a safe access for riders. Grant Lorenz Road is a long and straight road with two bright streetlights, one right before the fire lane. The access at Crescent Beach requires riders to go up and down several hills and around several corners if they have to bypass Grant Lorenz Road. The Grant Lorenz Road fire lane is wide enough for riders as well. Fourth, the homeowner who lives adjacent to the Grant Lorenz Road fire is trying to limit certain vehicle traffic on the fire lane and not others. All throughout the year, there are often vehicles parked in this fire lane related to either his or other construction projects occurring nearby. It appears this homeowner is trying to restrict some traffic from using the fire lane and simultaneously use the fire lane as a personal parking spot. However, the fire lane is not part of his property, it is public right of way for use by all residents. For all of these reasons, I believe the fire lane at Grant Lorenz Road should be rezoned to officially allow snowmobile access during the winter. Thank you for your time and consideration of this issue. Gillian Blomquist PLEASE NOTE; NEW EMA TL ADDRESS Gillian J. Blomquist Wermerskirchen & Blomquist, LLC 1001 Twelve Oaks Center Drive, Suite 1028 Wayzata, MN 55391 Office (763) 447-6802 Fax: (763) 447-6809 Email: gW=0Iwbfamilylaw.com This message and any attachments may contain confidential information protected by attorney -client or other privilege. If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, please reply to the sender that you received the message in error and then delete it. Unless we have a signed representation agreement, this message it not legal advice. CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB RD JOINT PARK/PLANNING COMMISSION SHOREWOOD CETY HALL WORKSESSION 7:00 PM T'UESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2021 Due to the Centers for Disease Control's recommendation limiting the number of people present at a meeting, and pursuant to MN Statute §13D.02, the Shorewood Park and Planning Commission meetings will be held by electronic means. For those wishing to listen live to the meeting, please go to ci.shorewood.mn.us/current meeting for the meeting link. Contact the city at 952.960.7900 during regular business hours with questions. For link issues at meeting time, call 952.960.7906. 1 20 0 AGENDA CONVENE JOINT PARK/PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSESSION A. Roll Call W�l T? -n .._.:-._-- A .3— geraD al DISCUSSION ITEM: A. Fire Lanes - (Att.-#2 ADJOURN Park Cornnri n Liaison for City Coin 1 N 1'�, Mangold Hirner Gallivan Schmid_ Garske ADDY GORHAM EGGENSERGER GAU LT RIEDEL CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 Country Club Road - Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 89i 952-960-7900 - www.ci.shorewood.mn.us - cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us To: Parks Commission, PlanningCommission and City i 4c� r y Council From: Marie Darling, Planning Director Memo Date: January 12, 2021 Re: Continued Fire Lane Discussion for Fire Lanes 1, 3-6 Attachments: Memorandum for the November Meetings Section 611 - Snowmobile Regulations Section 1201.03 Subd. 19 Zoning Map with Fire Lanes Identified Correspondence Received Regarding Fire Lanes The information below is an excerpt of the information provided in the September 1, 2020 joint meeting specifically discussing the five remaining fire lanes where the Commissions determined more discussion was needed. Also attached is the memo from the November meetings, with the additional information requested by the Commissions and previously discussed. From the September 1 Report (Excerpted): Now that staff and all the commissioners were able to walk each of the 10 fire lanes, the next step is to consider: • How well does each fire lane serve the public as lake access? • Are the uses that are currently allowed appropriate in each of the fire lanes? • Are there other uses that are currently not permitted that could be approved based on the characteristics of each fire lane? • Should improvements be completed to allow the site to serve as public lake access more effectively? Currently allowed Uses: The current allowed uses are divided into three groups, with eight of the fire lanes in the group that allows the most passive uses. The uses are summarized below. Class 1: Allows pedestrian access to the lake, fishing from the shore, launching canoes and other small boats not requiring a trailer, and cross country skiing. Class 2: Allows pedestrian access to the lake, launching canoes and other small boats not requiring a trailer, cross country skiing, snowmobile access to the lake, swimming and parking. Class 3: Allows pedestrian access to the lake, fishing from the shore, launching canoes and other small boats not requiring a trailer, cross country skiing and allows the installation of a dock subject to six specific conditions listed in the regulations (attached). Cr2F6 Fire Lanes 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10 t' D 0 Ir� rf�v) The adjacent Yacht Club has indicated that they would be willing to work with the City to provide lockable storage racks for personal watercraft to increase public access to the lake and would be willing to provide maintenance in the area. The boundary between the two parcels was not clearly defined on the original plat. Private improvements have been placed in the fire lane obstructing public access. Fire Lane 1 A��4�, 0*\k' A . tfo This fire lane provides the most commonly -used public access to 4 tt ° the lake in both summer and winter Private improvements have been installed in the fire lane. 25 feet in width Fire Lane 3 N\ 25 feet wide Fire La Provides steep access point to the lake. 66 feet wide Fire Lane 5 This fire lane provides a widening of Crescent Beach, but the Shorewood side of the fire lane is mostly a ditch to Lake Minnetonka for drainage purposes. Shorewood side is 33 f Wide CS c � POW0 CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 Country Club Road • Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 952-960-7900 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityha11@ci.shorewood.mn.us To: Park Commission and Planning Commission From: Marie Darling, Planning Director Meeting Dates: November 10, 2020 (Park Commission) November 17, 2020 (Planning Commission) Re: Fire Lanes Open Questions Attachments: DNR Input on Vacation Requests Information from Assessor on Tax Impact of Vacation Minutes from the September 1, 2020 meeting Correspondence Received At the joint work session on September 1, 2020, the Commissioners asked for three additional pieces of information: How vacations are processed The cost to provide additional maintenance The tax implications if adjacent property owners receive additional property through vacations At that same meeting, the commissioners were generally in consensus with the following: ✓ They suggested that Fire Lane 2 may have no public park purpose and suggested keeping it as a utility access for lift station maintenance and removing that from the ordinance and zoning map ✓ They needed more information to decide on the future of Fire Lanes 3-6 ✓ They thought Fire Lanes 8-10 would have little public use in the future and should be considered for vacation THE VACATION PROCESS: The process to vacate streets, alleys, public grounds, public ways, etc. is governed by Minnesota Statute 412.851. The statute indicates that vacations may only be undertaken if it is in the public interest to do so. The City would need to hire a surveyor to prepare a legal description of the property(ies) if a legal description is not currently available. The City Council must order a public hearing to complete the vacation. Staff would then publish a notice of the meeting twice and post the notices in the entrance to City Hall and on the website at least 10 days before the hearing. The city is also required to send notice to the Commissioner of the DNR at least 60 days prior to the hearing. Additionally, at least 15 days prior to convening the public hearing, the Council or its designee must consult with the commissioner of natural resources to review the proposed vacation and advise the City on the evaluation based on specific criteria: 1. The proposed vacation and the public benefits to do so. 2. The present and potential use of the land for access to public waters. 3. How the vacation would impact conservation of natural resources. Staff also consulted with the DNR staff on how they would review the requests and they submitted the attached information. Additionally, an abutting property owner who suffers lack of access from the vacation of the area may be entitled to compensation. TAX IMPLICATIONS FOR RECEIVING PROPERTY OWNERS: The County Assessor provided information on the tax implications for the adjacent property owners that may receive additional land. The tax implications for the properties adjacent to Lake Minnetonka appear to be greater than the implications for the properties adjacent to Lake William. The Assessor's information is attached. MAINTENANCE. - The public works director provided the following information regarding the cost of any additional fire lane maintenance: The cost to provide a walkway to the shore or top of bluff are not fully known at this time. Staff are still asking for information from contractors, but any spraying that would be needed for noxious weeds would cost approximately $300-$400 per fire lane per application due to topography and other constraints. Removal of noxious weeds may require more than one spraying. The cost to provide signage at the boundaries and one sign stating the allowed uses and hours would cost a minimum of $120 per sign, plus posts and installation. Public works staff would not recommend changes to the ditch in Fire Lane 6 to allow for additional access as the ditch is highly important for stormwater purposes. He recommends the winter access be through the beach area instead. Regarding Fire Lane 2 — Larry Brown, Public Works Director recommends removing this as a fire lane, but the easements would need to remain. Liability: The City Attorney has advised that the liability of Fire Lanes is similar to any park property, whether left as they are or if opened up to encourage greater public access. Marie Darling From: Stewart, Nancy (DNR) <nancy.stewart@state.mn.us> Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2020 2:05 PM To: Marie Darling; Vickery, Martha L (DNR) Cc: Henzen, Rachel (DNR); Spooner -Mueller, Nancy (DNR) Subject: RE: Vacations of rights of way to lake William and Lake Minnetonka in Shorewood Hi Maria, DNR staff are instructed to review each proposed vacation on its own merits. DNR staff from every division are asked for comments. The DNR comments on these three topics areas: a. Public benefits to doing the vacation, and b. Present and future potential public use of the area for recreation, and c. How the road vacation would impact the conservation of natural resources, wildlife/fish habitat, and cultural and historic resources in the area In most road vacation proceedings, the petitioner must prove that these roadways or public areas that abut or lead to public waters have no public value in either present or future sense. One of the DNR's tasks is to articulate the potential (current and future) value these areas might have, because once these lands are vacated they are likely lost to the public forever. Resolving trespass and encroachment issues from private landowners on the proposed vacated road that abuts public water is not enough of a reason to oppose or be unopposed to the proposed vacation of the road. The trespass/encroachment can be removed and resolved over time. When the road vacation is part of a comprehensive plan for the lake, and when the town, city, or county that has included an in-depth field and a public review process, as these lands offer access to people who cannot afford lakeshore property. The DNR would like to see that there is: • Adequate access to public waters during the summer and winter for both motorized and non - motorized activities. These public corridors often afford recreational opportunities such as shore fishing, canoeing, swimming, picnicking, observation and scenic viewing area, ice fishing and/or snowmobiling access. • No harm to natural resources. These public corridors abutting or terminating at waters often provide an intact riparian shore land zone that affords the ecological functions necessary to sustain fish and wildlife, and protect water quality. Additional shore land development causes major impacts. • A review if there are historical and cultural resources present, which is common for lakeshore parcels. The DNR strongly encourages these resources be protected. Hope this helps, please let me know if you have additional questions. Nancy Nancy Stewart Water Recreation Consultant I Division of Parks and Trails Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 500 Lafayette Road St. Paul, MN 55155 Phone: 651-259-5616 Email: nancV.stewart@state.mn.us mndnr.gov Marie Darling From: Michael J Smerdon <Michael.Smerdon@hennepin.us> Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2020 3:23 PM To: Marie Darling Subject: Impact of vacating fire lanes on neighboring properties value Hi Marie, As we discussed earlier today, if the City were to vacate the fire lanes and deed them to a neighboring residential property, it may or may not impact that property's assessed value. For those properties on Lake Minnetonka it would increase their lake frontage and therefore increase the assessed value of the property. The impact would be different for every property depending on how much lake shore that property currently has. If is it a lot with a large amount of lakeshore it would have a smaller impact than if it was deeded to a property with a small amount of frontage. The properties on Lake William would be impacted much less, as we value those lots as building sites, and the amount of frontage on Lake William has a much smaller impact on the values of those properties. If you have any other questions let me know, Michael Smerdon, SAMA Principal Residential Appraiser Hennepin County Assessor's Office Cell : 612-267-4480 Office: 952-249-4641 "Value and Classify Property, Uniformly and Accurately" "Please note, The Hennepin County Assessor's Office public facing locations are currently closed. In support of the health and safety of our taxpayers and employees, we are working remotely. We will get back to you as quickly as possible, and thank you in advance for your patience as we navigate new ways to serve you. Disclaimer: If you are not the intended recipient, of this message, please immediately notify the sender of the transmission error and then promptly delete this message from your computer system. Shorewood, MN Code of Ordinances CHAPTER 611 SNOWMOBILES Section 611.01 Definitions 611.02 Operation generally 611.03 Manner of operation 611.04 Equipment - -- - 611.05 Application of other laws 611.06 Persons under certain age 611.07 Leaving snowmobile unattended 611.08 Chasing animals forbidden 611.09 Littering and obstructions 611.10 Violations 611.01 DEFINITIONS. For the purpose of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply unless the context clearly indicates or requires a different meaning. BOULEVARD. That portion of a street right-of-way not occupied by pavement. LRT RIGHT-OF-WAY. That portion of the Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority right-of-way within the City of Shorewood commencing on the east at the City of Excelsior corporate boundary and extending west to the City of Victoria corporate boundary. LRT TRAIL. That portion of the LRT right-of-way maintained for the use of the public for nonvehicular purposes. OPERATE. To ride in or on and control the operation of a snowmobile. OPERATOR. Every person who operates or is in actual physical control of a snowmobile. ORGANIZED EVENT. An event sponsored and conducted by the Park Commission, the Chamber of Commerce, Jaycees, American Legion or similar Council -recognized civic groups or associations. OWNER. A person, other than a lienholder, having the property in or title to a snowmobile and entitled to the use or possession thereof. PERSON. Includes an individual, partnership, corporation and any body of persons, whether incorporated or not, the State of Minnesota and its agencies and political subdivisions, except this definition does not include police officers or duly authorized and uninformed snow patrol personnel in the performance of their duties. PLOW RIDGE. The bank of snow remaining at the side of the road after the plow has passed. RIGHT-OF-WAY. Any property established for the use of the public for street or highway purposes by any federal, state, county or local government, by dedication, gift or statutory use, whether developed or undeveloped, paved or unpaved. American Legal Publishing Corp. 33 Shorewood, MN Code of Ordinances SAFETY or DEADAL N THROTTLE. A device which, when pressure is removed from the engine accelerator or throttle, causes the motor to be disengaged from the driving track. SNOWMOBILE. A self-propelled vehicle designed for travel on snow or ice or natural terrain steered by skis or runners. STREET or HIGHWAY. The entire width between boundary lines of any right-of-way or place when any part thereof is open to the use of the public, as a matter of right, for the movement of vehicular traffic. (1987 Code, § 802.01) 611.02 OPFRA.TION GRNFRALLY. Subd. 1. A person may operate a snowmobile within the corporate limits of the city in only the following locations: a. Public waters as permitted by resolution of the LMCD or Shorewood City Council, but not closer than 150 feet to the shoreline except when entering or exiting the public waters traveling in a line perpendicular to the shoreline; b. On private property with the express permission of the property owner; C. On a right-of-way subject to the limitations set forth in this section; d. Such other locations and times as designated by resolution of the City Council for supervised training; e. A person operating a snowmobile in any part of the City of Shorewood except as provided herein shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Subd. 2. No person shall operate a snowmobile upon the roadway of any street or highway except for the purpose of direct travel from the person's home to the closest destination where snowmobiling is permitted by the shortest possible route and then only if travel on the adjacent street or highway right-of-way is restricted because of developed yards or physical barriers. Subd. 3. Persons may operate a snowmobile on the street side of the plow ridge and avoid obstacles by going into the street, not onto the boulevard. While traveling on streets, snowmobiles shall drive in the direction of traffic. Subd. 4. No person shall operate a snowmobile on the LRT trail or within the LRT right-of-way. Subd. 5. A snowmobile may make a direct crossing of a street or highway provided: a. The crossing is made at an angle of approximately 90 degrees to the direction of the street or highway and at a place where no obstruction prevents a quick and safe crossing; b. The snowmobile is brought to a complete stop before crossing the shoulder or main traveled way of the highway; C. The operator of the snowmobile must yield the right-of-way to all oncoming traffic; d. In crossing a divided street or highway, the crossing is made at an intersection of such street or highway with another public street or highway; e. The crossing is made with both front and rear lights illuminated. Subd. 6. Where no special hazard exists, the following speeds shall be lawful, and any speeds in excess shall be deemed unlawful: a. 10 miles per hour on public property within the city; American Legal Publishing Corp. 34 Shorewood, MN Code of Ordinances b. 10 miles per hour when operated on any public waters within the city closer than 150 feet to the shoreline. Subd. 7. No snowmobile shall enter any uncontrolled intersection without making a complete stop. The operator shall then yield the right-of-way to any vehicles or pedestrians. Subd. 8. Notwithstanding any prohibition in this chapter, a snowmobile may be operated on a public thoroughfare in an emergency during the period of time when snow upon such thoroughfare renders travel by automobile impractical. Subd. 9. An operator shall bring the snowmobile to a stop and switch off the engine when flagged by a police officer or duly authorized uniformed snow patrol member. (1987 Code, § 802.02) (Ord. 358, passed 10-25-1999) 611.03 MANNER OF OPERATION. Except as otherwise specifically permitted and authorized, it is unlawful for any person to operate a snowmobile within the limits of the city in the following manner: Subd. 1. At any place while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or narcotics or habit forming drugs; Subd. 2. At a rate of speed greater than reasonable or proper under all the surrounding circumstances. Racing is prohibited except as may be specifically authorized as part of an organized event, which authorization shall be by permit issued by the City Council. Maximum speed limits shall be set from time to time by Council resolution; Subd. 3. At any place in a careless, reckless or negligent manner so as to endanger the person or property of another or to cause injury or damage thereto; Subd. 4. So as to tow any person or thing except through use of a rigid tow bar attached to the rear of the snowmobile; Subd. 5. When the noise level of the snowmobile exceeds 78 decibels on the A Scale at a distance of 50 feet from the snowmobile; Subd. 6. At anytime within the city between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on Friday and Saturday, and between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on Sunday through Thursday; Subd. 7. At any time between the first of April and the thirtieth of November; Subd. 8. Abreast of another snowmobile except when overtaking and passing another snowmobile. No passing shall be allowed if a pedestrian is within 30 feet of the snowmobile; Subd. 9. On the LRT Trail. (1987 Code, § 802.03) (Ord. 358, passed 10-25-1999) Penalty, see § 104.01 611.04 EQUIPMENT. It is unlawful for any person to operate or for the owner to cause or knowingly permit the operation of a snowmobile any place within the limits of the city unless it is equipped with the following: Subd. 1. Standard mufflers which are properly attached and in constant operation and which reduce the noise of operation of the motor to the minimum necessary for operation. Mufflers shall comply with Minn. Rules part 6100.5700, subp. 5 which certifies that a new American Legal Publishing Corp. 35 Shorewood, MN Code of Ordinances snowmobile complies with the noise limitation requirements of this rule. A manufacturer shall make such a certification based on measurements made in accordance with the SAE Recommended Practice J192(a) as set forth in the Report of the Vehicle Sound Level Committee, as approved by the Society of Automotive Engineers, September 1970 and revised November 1973; Subd. 2. Brakes adequate to control the movement of and to stop and hold the snowmobile under any conditions of operation; Subd. 3. A safety or deadman throttle in operating condition; Subd. 4. At least one clear lamp attached to the front, with sufficient intensity to reveal persons and vehicles at a distance of at least 100 feet ahead during the hours of darkness under normal atmospheric conditions. Such head lamp shall be so aimed that glaring rays are not projected into the eyes of an oncoming vehicle operator. It shall also be equipped with at least one red tail lamp having a minimum candle power of sufficient intensity to exhibit a red Iight plainly visible from a distance of 500 feet to the rear during the hours of darkness under normal atmospheric conditions. The lighting equipment shall be illuminated at all times the vehicle is operated; Subd. 5. Reflective material at least 16 square inches on each side, forward of the handlebars, so as to reflect or beam light at a 90 degree angle. (1987 Code, § 802.04) Penalty, see § 104.01 611.05 APPLICATION OF OTHER LAWS. City traffic ordinances shall apply to the operation of snowmobiles upon streets and highways and M.S. §§ 84.81 to 84.88 and M.S. Chapter 169, as amended, and except for those provisions relating to required equipment, are adopted by reference. (1987 Code, § 802.05) 611.06 PERSONS UNDER CERTAIN AGE. Subd. 1. It is unlawful for any person under 14 years of age to operate on streets, highways, public lands or frozen water or make a direct crossing of a street or highway as the operator of a snowmobile unless accompanied by a parent or guardian. A person 14 years of age or older, but less than 18 years of age, may operate a snowmobile on streets, highway, public lands or frozen waters as permitted under this section and make a direct crossing of a street or highway only if he or she has in his or her immediate possession a valid snowmobile safety certificate issued by the Commissioner of Natural Resources. Subd. 2. It is unlawful for the owner of a snowmobile to permit the snowmobile to be operated contrary to the provisions of this section. (1987 Code, § 802.06) Penalty, see § 104.01 611.07 LEAVING SNOWMOBILE UNATTENDED. American Legal Publishing Corp. 36 Shorewood, MN Code of Ordinances Every person leaving a snowmobile in a public place shall lock the ignition and remove the key from the snowmobile. (1987 Code, § 802.07) 611.08 CHASING ANIMALS FORBIDDEN. It is unlawful to intentionally drive, chase, run over or kill any animal, wild or domestic, with a snowmobile. (1987 Code, § 802.08) Penalty, see § 104.01 611.09 LITTERING AND OBSTRUCTIONS. Subd. 1. No person shall deposit paper, litter, rubbish or debris on public or private property or throw paper, litter, rubbish or debris from snowmobiles. Subd. 2. No person shall place obstructions, including ice blocks, on publicly -owned lands or frozen waters so as to interfere with the lawful use thereof by the public. Subd. 3. All traffic control devices used for routing snowmobile traffic away from private and public property shall be located on the same private or public property and shall be in place no earlier than November 1 and shall be removed on or before April 15. (1987 Code, § 802.09) 611.10 VIOLATIONS. Any person violating the provisions of this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor. (1987 Code, § 802.10) (Ord. 245, passed 10-28-1991; Ord. 280, passed 10-11-1993; Ord. 296, passed 1-23-1995; Ord. 314, passed 10-14-1996) Penalty, see § 104.01 American Legal Publishing Corp. 37 Section 1201.03 of the Shorewood Zoning Regulations Subd. 19. Fire lanes. a. Purpose. Recognizing that all fire lanes are to provide lake access to the public, this subdivision is established to identify, classify and regulate the use thereof based upon their historic use within the city. b. Use classifications. The use of fire lanes in Shorewood shall be restricted to one of the following classifications: (1) Class I may be used for pedestrian access to the lake, fishing from shore, launching canoes and other small boats not requiring a trailer and cross-country skiing; (2) Class II may be used for all of the activities as designated in Class I except fishing, as well as snowmobile access during the winter, parking and swimming; (3) Class III may be used only for pedestrian access to the lake, fishing, launching canoes and other small boats not requiring a trailer. In addition, a single dock may be installed subject to the following: (a) The person or group of persons installing the dock shall be Shorewood residents and apply for an annual building permit prior to installation of the dock; (b) The total length of the dock shall not exceed 25 feet; (c) The dock shall be installed by a professional installer and maintained in a safe and workmanlike manner; (d) The use of the dock shall be for the general public and shall not be limited to use by those who install it; (e) Docking of boats shall be limited to daytime hours only between sunrise and sunset; (f) The dock shall comply with all requirements of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District. C. Designation offrre lanes. The following fire lanes shall be identified on the Official Zoning Map and shall be classified as follows: (1) Class I: 1-Enchanted Island, 2-Shady Island, 3-Grant Lorenze, 4- Third Street, 7-Femcroft, 8-Tvy Lane, 9-Rustic Way South, l0-Rustic Vijay North; (2) Class 11: 6-Crescent Beach; (3) Class III: 5-Eureka. d. General regulations. (1) Fire lanes shall be used only for the activities provided for in subdivision b above. No sporting activities shall be allowed which involve thrown objects such as catch, softball, baseball, frisbee, volleyball or football. (2) Fire lanes shall be subject to the rules and regulations contained in Shorewood Ordinance 140, as may be amended, (Chapter 902) pertaining to the use of city parks, including, but not limited to, use of intoxicating beverages. (3) Maintenance and improvements of fire lanes shall be the sole responsibility of the city. No one shall maintain or make improvements, except as modified herein, without the approval of the City Administrator/Clerk or his or her agent. (4) Except in Class II fire lanes, there shall be no parking of automobiles, boat trailers or snowmobiles on or adjacent to any of the fire lanes identified herein. (5) Except for snowmobiles in Class H fire lanes, motorized vehicles shall be prohibited on fire lanes. (6) Lots with side yards abutting fire lanes shall provide a total of 30 feet of side yard setback with no one side being less than ten feet. � .� � � ._ � � # .� o° � $ k « § to � U) § le � § ILCO LU IL ■ L co @ $ q k k § � a o � Q 6 � . ■ & � E # a 5 k I? m o L L L L L L � ( 2 & 2 � o ¥ f t 9 { 2 k LT - 7 m e CO k k �2 w � Marie Darling From: Melia Liester <tmliester@mchsi.com> Sent: Monday, January 4, 2021 8:12 PM To: Marie Darling Subject: Fire Lane Study (Birch Bluff Road Fire Lane #3) Dear Members of Shorewood City Council and Planning and Park Commissioners This email is regarding the upcoming planning commission meeting on 1/12/21 and the fire lane study. I've attended the last two planning commission meetings where this topic has been discussed, and I will be attending on 1/12 as well, but I wanted to provide the council some context as to where I, and several other Shorewood/Birch Bluff/Grant Lorenz/Oak Ridge Circle/Noble Road residents, are on this topic. What I/we would like to convey is that the residents of Shorewood involved in this matter represent the voice of many vs. the voice of a few who are unhappy with fire lane #3. We have all had access, by snowmobile, or ATV, for as long as we all have lived here, and the majority of us have lived here over 25 years. Basically, there is one party who is asking to have this fire lane restricted to foot traffic only, as you know. Ultimately, we propose that the fire lane #3 be amended to a Class II Firelane continuing the access we've for over the past 25+ years. Last year, the city blocked the fire lane, while they assessed the situation. We propose a trial option for the winter of 2021; that being limited hour access to snowmobiles and ATVs and posted speed limits, similar to what Tonka Bay allows. Please see the attached photo taken at the Bay Road access near Manitou road. Everyone is sensitive to the fact that there are two homes that border this fire lane, and that it is reasonable to ask for some restrictions. But to completely change what's been allowed for several years based on the request of one resident, without considering viable options implemented in neighboring lake communities, seems unreasonable. We all live in Shorewood for various reasons, but a primary reason is the small town feel, the sense of community and access to Lake Minnetonka! We want to be able to use the "shore" and the "woods" as we've been accustomed to for so many years. We seek a reasonable solution that provides reasonable access to the states top recreational lakes. I appreciate the City of Shorewood and staffs time and consideration. Tim Liester 26355 Oak Ridge Circle Marie Darling From: Melia Liester <tmliester@mchsi.com> Sent: Monday, January 4, 2021 8:14 PM To: Marie Darling Subject: Photo of fire lane in Tonka Bay per email just sent Hi Marie, I couldn't attach this photo for some reason, so here's the fire lane photo referenced in the email we just sent. Thanks! Tim Liester ar e z F m,r' `� �' f . � � v r>6�3�� t r ,. fitr, t` rc � �k. Michael S. Rosenberg MD Sagit V. Rosenberg MD 4595 Enchanted Point Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 September 17, 2020 City of Shorewood Planning and Park Commissioners Greg Lerud, City Administrator Marie Darling, Planning Director Shorewood City Hall 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 RE: Fire lane 1 Dear Commissioners, Administrator, and Director: We are the property owners of 4595 Enchanted Point (hereafter, "4595") adjacent to Fire lane 1 in the City of Shorewood and would like to include comments regarding the uses allowed in that fire lane. Thank you for directing us to the packet on the City website in preparation for the Planning Commission meeting held on September 1, 2020 at 7:00 pm. In the packet, made first available on Friday, August 28, 2020, we reviewed the letter sent by the Commodore of the Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club Marina, John E. Grzybek, dated January 15, 2019. In Mr. Grzybek's letter, there are a number of misstatements of fact regarding the adjacent fire lane that we wish to clarify. First, we moved into the adjacent property over 17 years ago and have since been regularly cleaning and maintaining the area of the fire lane. This has involved cleaning pre-existing trash including an old wheelbarrow, dock pieces, an old hose, and cinderblocks. Since our ownership of 4595 in May 2003, we have also performed regular maintenance of the grounds such as watering with the pre-existing underground sprinklers, fall and spring clean-up, mowing the lawn and cleaning up storm debris. The landscaping boulders and pine trees in the fire lane existed prior to our purchase of this property. The "weeds" on the fire lane, which the Commodore is referring to, was a wall of natural beauty with yellow and lavender hollyhocks, sumac and wild grape vines that were unilaterally mowed down and killed with Round Up by the Yacht Club under the direction of the current Commodore over the last 2 or 3 years leaving thorns, thistles and poison ivy (Exhibit A and B). This was apparently for the purpose of exerting some self-serving claim that they have maintained that property for potential territorial gain when in actuality their actions have been to the detriment of the neighborhood and the general public. At our meeting with Marie Darling, Greg Lerud, and Katriona Filipovitich Molasky regarding the adjacent fire lane, on January 22, 2020, we showed photos of the natural greenery and flowers as well as the landscaping which was present in the fire lane prior to the purchase of our property in May 2003. Approximately 3 years ago, erosion of the shoreline and subsequent flooding extending from the fire lane into our property carried with it large amounts of debris and dead fish. We repaired the extensive damage to the area. This included replacing some of the destroyed sod in the fire lane that pre -dated the purchase of our property, added a small area of rip rap and sand to preserve the shoreline and prevent further erosion and flooding, and continued to mow the lawn in order to make the area more safe and accessible. We were further dismayed by the Commodore's letter noting "[we have] explored selling [our] home, using photographs of the improvements [we] made on City property, as what appears to be an incentive for potential purchasers." Neither we nor our professional real estate agent have ever misrepresented the boundaries of our property to potential buyers and there are appropriate disclosures regarding the fire lane. This calls into question the Commodore's integrity and the general veracity of his statements --especially when considering his prior disbarment from the State of Minnesota for numerous instances of unethical, dishonest and inappropriate behavior, including misappropriation of client funds and failure to follow court orders. It is our belief that the Yacht Club, which started off as a sailing club, has repeatedly tried to change our quiet residential neighborhood by expanding their commercial business. Over the years, they have challenged their conditional use permit, expanding it from "sailboats" to "boats" allowing the addition of several moored power boats transforming their sailing club to a marina. This altered the character of the area from a quiet residential neighborhood to a busy commercial entity. This impact on the adjacent neighbors was significant enough to pursue repeated legal action (see Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club v. City of Shorewood in MN Court of Appeals in July 2009). In his letter, the Commodore references a letter sent 2 years prior expressing their desire to "lease or purchase" what they called the "wasted property" of the fire lane as it would "add to the City's tax base". Now, they are offering to provide lockable storage racks for "personal watercraft" which further exemplifies the Yacht Club's ambition to manipulate this land for the expansion of their own commercial goals, contrary to current residential zoning. It is reasonable to assume that the use of the storage racks, and for that matter the fire lane land in general, will be primarily for the benefit of their own patrons. We wish to make the following points clear: 1. We would like our neighborhood to remain a quiet residential neighborhood as it is currently zoned. We respectfully request to continue the classification of Fire Lane 1 as Class 1 and NOT expand commercial use of the adjacent Yacht Club to include more motor boat noise, especially with the addition of personal watercraft. 2. If the fire lane land adjacent to our property is abandoned by the City, is for lease or for sale, then we should have equal access to any transaction as we would be interested in acquiring the property as well. Finally, we are attaching copies of our email to the City and the City's response following our meeting regarding the adjacent fire lane, at the City Hall on January 22, 2020 demonstrating our cooperation with the City's requests (Exhibit C). At that meeting, we also offered to remove at our own expense 1 or 2 of the boulders that pre -date our purchase of 4595 in order to allow public access through the landscaped portion of the fire lane. The City instructed us to await further recommendation of the Planning Committee and City Council. We remain ready and willing to continue to cooperate with the City. Incidentally, contrary to our compliance, the Yacht Club continues to store a boat lift on the fire lane property (please see Exhibit D). We appreciate City of Shorewood support in preserving current Fire Lane 1 classification and appeal to the Yacht Club to also respect the residential nature of our neighborhood. Thank you for your attention in this matter. Sincerely, 4 ' Dr. Michael S. Rosenberg, MD, FSIR, FACR Dr. Sagit V. Rosenberg, MD 1 y 6 �n� ilk V:i im f .bS ,�• �,F - - �,. �. �-�n �'4.A �rE�i �IW��Y',I� ,Y:, t+sM,}�,, P:1f It ¶ l,to 1 T I a �y1 s, A �,fi e^rK, .ter r s r .a ai r" b � � � • �_ _�. � �' • I. � �� _ '-{ I � , mill ''v/ � � � " {III TI IIIiE pu d'a�5' -,' a I I i,�N•i/ . �.kb I �I/r''I lit It�. I +�N,' Y r g _ � 4 -'y �7 �' y* sk T �"�a41i ��Il r,��i,;4,� �.. �.��„� ,.�,b NW�a: �� •ill ;i "'-'� .. .' �' di�i4a9w ,-d .. ,r! , vc .�nr�;.x. , t A>+S>Y, i�'.1:�31►—.� � ��', f � ` Y f��+�, w III ��XiI��• � �.L �i� �j ` .,. r _ y k r c , �e•. x ;}/;:y/ � N fie. s-•- �; i,��. y- '". �_ ' li' s.•rr� ; fir, ?�'' f '` i!1' �,�i �.-- �` v .4Mmra ';$� '", � ?f' . t J T i, nxa�-i'sa t 5�, r -��rY g�+. .Jt •r ..+. r.K-" EXHIBIT C Monday, August 31, 2020 at 20.34:14 Central Daylight Time Subject: RE: Follow up to our 1/22/20 meeting Date: Monday, January 27, 2020 at 8:08:53 AM Central Standard Time From: Greg Lerud To: Michael Rosenberg, Marie Darling, Katriona Molasky Attachments: image002.jpg [vir. and Mrs. Rosenberg, Thank you for your email. Your email arrived before I was able to complete a summary letter, and your email accurately summarizes our meeting. We will let you know as soon as we are able to schedule a site visit for the parks and planning commission, which we anticipate will be in April. Following that meeting we will have some direction about the future plans for the city -owned property. Regards, Greg Greg Lerud, City Administrator City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 p: 952-960-7905 From: Michael Rosenberg<michaelsagit.rose nberg@comcast. net> Sent: Monday, January 27, 202012:45 AM To: Marie Darling <MDarling@ci.shorewood.mn.us>; Greg Lerud <GLerud@ci.shorewood.mn.us>; Katriona Molasky <KMolasky@ci.shorewood.mn.us> Subject: Follow up to our 1/22/20 meeting Dear Marie, Greg and Katriona: Thank you for meeting with us on Wednesday, January 22, 2020 regarding clarification of City of Shorewood requirements with respect to the fire lane bordering our property on 4595 Enchanted Point. As you requested, we will proceed with moving the underground sprinklers and the two boat lifts in the spring, once the weather permits. In addition, as we agreed and per your suggestion, we look forward to meeting with City of Shorewood Page i of 2 EXHIBIT C (Cont) representatives on site to discuss any further requested modifications to the grounds within the context of the City's future plans for that area. We kindly appreciate advanced notice of the anticipated date and time of the site visit so we can coordinate. Please send any future correspondence regarding this or other matters to our home address in Eagan listed below. Sincerely, Michael and Sagit Rosenberg 4187 Amberleaf Trail Eagan, MN 55123 Cell: 651-387-3566 Page 2 of 2 EXHIBIT C (Cont) 'CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 Country Club Road . Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 952.960.7900 * www.ci.shorewood.mn.us January 23, 2020 Michael and Sagit Rosenberg 4595 Enchanted Point Shorewood, MN 55331 Mr. and Ms. Rosenberg, Thank you for taking the time to come to City Hall and meet with us regarding the fire lane next to your property at 4595 Enchanted Point. It was valuable to have everyone together to discuss the situation as it stands and next steps in the process. You will be required to relocate the boat lift and any personal Items within the fire lane property to your personal property. This can be done anytime between now and May 1, 2020. You will also be required to cap the sprinkler system at the property line. Currently the sprinkler system extends into the fire lane and the line must be terminated at the property line. This work must be completed by June 1, 2020. The City will be doing to visits to all of the fire lanes in April with the Park and Planning Commissions. These meetings will be public and you are welcome to attend. They will be visiting the fire lane next to your property and will discuss next steps in regards to the use and necessary landscaping. Next steps in regards to landscaping will be determined after this visit. These discussions may result in new orders to move other private improvements. At the meeting it was also discussed that you are selling this property. You must disclose the improvement the property line to any new buyer. If there is anything in this letter that you feel does not represent your understanding of what was discussed at the meeting, please let us know so we can clarify to make sure we are all on the same page with this matter moving forward. Katrlona IF Ilpovitch Molasky Planning Technician Marie Darling From: Michael Blomquist <mike@mikeydidit.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2019 10:06 AM To: Planning Cc: Michael Blomquist Subject: Fire Lane At Grant Lorenz and Birch bluff I would like to ask that this fire lane be reclassified to a Class II allowing vehicles such as snowmobiles and 4- wheeler to access the lake in winter. I believe the fire lane is currently being misused by the homeowner who lives next to the fire lane. This is the same homeowner who posted signs on the fire lane last winter trying to block others from using the fire lane. Throughout the year, this homeowner uses the fire lane to park vehicles. I am attaching images of many different instances of this occurring. I am not interested in getting in a fight with neighbors, but this homeowner yelled at me last winter for trying to access the lake on a 4-wheeler, which is something that I and many others have always done. At the same time, he has no problem with others parking in the fire lane. The fire lane access to the lake is one of the reasons I moved to this area. I use the lake all year long, boating in summer and ice fishing in winter. I do not want to see this fire lane closed off from it's traditional use because of one resident. Thank you for your time and consideration of this issue. Thank you, Mike Blomquist T r�• wig tr f � gyp. mv,, "'Pii^t r L J A61 �' M '=r, .L^ �! .} A, 1. �.. • . ! .J" YI ,.pw�A •A. � y rF ��iM' i d I w I ❑ C X= �rww��r 8 C=m �If • s 1. i r ; trr,:- .-a �a.-..^;tip ot=K i C)- () SHORE The best little sailing and boating Q� ©ub on Lake Minnetonka. John E. Grzybek Commodore, Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club 730 Winslow Avenue Saint Paul, Minnesota 55107 (651) 592-0945 (cell phone) 15 January Tuesday 2019 Via EMail City of Shorewood Planning and Park Commissioners Through Greg Lerud, City Administrator Shorewood City Hall 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota Re: Fire Lanes as Abandoned Property, Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club Comments; Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club Marina, 4580 Enchanted Point Dear Commissioners: Introduction I am the Commodore of the Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club ("UMYC"). I understand that you are taking comments regarding fire lane properties within the City of Shorewood. I am submitting this letter as the UMYC's public comment. Unfortunately, because of an out -of --town conflict I am unable to appear personally before you. However, if you have any follow-up questions I will be more than happy to respond either in writing or in person. I am grateful that you are evaluating fire lane property and what the City could do with it. I recognize that the UMYC's request about two years ago to explore acquiring or leasing the vacated fire lane property located at our marina may have started this process, thus, my comments are related to our self -interests. I do not know the extent of the 51 amount of fire lane property the City of Shorewood may have in its possession, but to evaluate what the City has in its inventory and what should become of that property as a matter of public policy is a wise decision. General Policy Suggestion; Next Best Use of Abandoned, Wasted City Property As a matter of general policy, I would suggest that once existing fire lane property is evaluated, and determined to be of no use to the City for positive public use and has essentially been abandoned by the City, it is "wasted" property and should be made available for its next best use, if any. The property could be leased or purchased. This - would include use by private parties who could prevent any further "waste" to its value. It would also decrease the City's liability exposure related to the City's abandonment of that property. The fire lane property adjacent to our marina is a case in point. UMYC Experience With Fire Lane Property at its Marina The UMYC marina is located at 4580 Enchanted Point. At the southern most point of our property, is fire lane property that extends to the Upper Minnetonka Lake. See Exhibit A attached. Approximately two years ago, I approached the City of Shorewood to explore the possibility of acquiring that small and narrow piece of fire lane property located immediately south of our marina property. For all tends and purposes, it has been "wasted" by the City and abandoned. On the City fire lane property we inquired about, the UMYC has spent hundreds of dollars to clean that land because it had become wasted by the City. Neighbors (witnessed) had throw debris —leaves, tires, cut branches, a swing set, hose, concrete, and the like, that had accumulated for years. Because the overgrowth became so untenably to the UMYC and a potential hazard, I directed the cleanup at our expense. I was shocked at what we found. Countless volunteer hours were spent to clean up the abandoned, vacate property and now continue efforts to control the overgrowth. We continue to cut the weeds and gather dead -wood and debris, now only occasionally found, throughout our sailing and boating season, again, at our expense. Regardless, this property was long been forgotten by the City —abandoned, vacated, and wasted —and of no use to the City. Why is it of no use? Because this particular piece of fire lane property is narrow and can not be converted to any feasible public use. For instance, placing a public ramp for access to the lake is not practicable because there is too limited an area to park cars or trailers. Even if converted to a public park, it is limited to the amount of vehicles that could park. Moreover, to do a conversion of use would cause grave concerns about safety and security issues to the residential neighborhood and the marina. At the present time, the fire lane itself, although reaching to the lake, physically ends at the driveway of another private party's property located at 4595 Enchanted Lane. Although everything to the northeast and east of the lane is "fire lane property" and therefore City property, the owners of 4595 Enchanted Lane have significantly encroached on that City property. The owners have planted grass, created a sand beach, and have — without a permit —placed rip -rap on the shoreline. Five years ago, the UMYC stopped the owner from placing rip•rap all along the shoreline to the southern boundary of our marina property, and has abandoned that course of action. The owner had no permit of any kind. While I understand the owners do improvements on City property at their own risk, I find the treatment of the City to these property owners and our desire to acquire or lease the fire lane property places us at a distinct disadvantage. We've been working with City officials through proper channels while that owner has used the fire lane as his own. With that, the property owner has explored selling his home, using photographs of the improvements he made on City property, as what appears to be an incentive for potential purchasers. See Exhibit B attached. Policy; Lease or Purchase of Abandoned Fire Lane Property The City should consider that if the lands are of no public use because of their configuration and are abandoned and determines the vacated lands of no use, it should allow interested parties to acquire those lands or lease the property. It would help the City. With the UMYC for instance, we have taken it upon ourselves to service the land by keeping it from further becoming a hazard and dumping grounds others created. Hence, by our actions, City liability has been minimized. However, the UMYC is under no obligation to continue this generosity. If leased, an agreement could be crafted to ensure the lands are not wasted and kept in good order. If allowed to purchase, at a reasonable price, it would add to the City's tax base. Invitation to Visit UMYC Marina and Fire Lane Property If you have any questions regarding my statements, please contact me. Further, if you would like to visit our marina and physically see the fire lane property at issue, I would be happy to.escort any City official through the site. Thank you for allowing me to offer this statement. I hope to attend anyfuture public hearing on this matter, if future hearings are scheduled. Sincerely, John E lore, User in etonk) '�acht Club Ir I Juis X3 �� y 60 a - I I kY6.1 — r el i .. �� r;, - } �. � _ � ,��y� .K, ,% .. . r��J � r I. ! � R �� s � � u '+ t2 � � d s. ray t �n {, i[[. R= Y , !; ��rs ;.. � ra , , : :� 1 ,w 1 '�� .. _ � � V x � } � ?-'.2,. � � � rt IS fh' !i .r �� { k r� ��`� �� . fi�.l,. � r �,n: i I ' � � i .. 1 1 i .., 1. i �.. r� 4�`" �• f c�4,. �' x`4a ,x� d�1 �e 1 ��` 'i. � yid r �. M� . < v¢. •. h +max ,.Y',� _ 1. � 4 �R �� J{ .p !, ��:�i /� '1."j�, f�+`N�, .. � Y Y �� -.4 � M_ 'ALL �` m �5 �`� a@. � s�., _� r.Pt '�� `XA �. .&^.rd„ i 'r�.. ;[' .{+,u • � �„ i�J •f� January 15, 2019 Ms. Marie Darling City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN. 55331 Re: Fire lane access to lakes. Dear Marie, I am writing to express my concern regarding fire lane access to lakes. I am a resident of Shorewood and use the Class H fire Ianes for snowmobile access to access the lake. Snowmobiling is currently allowed on city streets currently and our only access to the lake is the Class II fire lane. I am against altering the city code regarding use of the fire lanes for vehicle access. Please keep my updated on city staff recommendations and any proposed changes to Subd. 19. Fire lanes. Sincerely, �!WN RECEIVED Martin Woody 2019REWOOD Marie Darling From: Robert Milstein <robert@milstein.com> on behalf of connieandrob@milstein.com Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2019 5:41 PM To: Planning Subject: RE: Workshop on Fire Lanes January 15 Planning & Parks Commissions, We are unable to attend the workshop tonight, but learned of this discussion and how it relates to the fire lane at the lake end of Grant Lorenz Rd (nearest our house). Despite living in Shorewood for just five years, we were well aware of this convenient public lake access. Further, we were aware that it was the primary access to the lake for snowmobilers in our area, and we were very surprised when we learned that snowmobile access through that fire lane is prohibited by the city. Because of this, we wanted to share a few short thoughts: - Safety First: Fire lanes should by nature never be blocked, which rules out any consideration of use for parking or storage at any time. Maintenance Second: Any use of the fire lanes that would cause an unacceptable maintenance expense deserves careful review — we're talking about taxes here. Reasonable Use Third: For ALL of the fire lanes, especially the one on Grant Lorenz, reasonable use should be strongly considered (bearing in mind the above two points). Clearly, reasonable use includes walking in/out, including portage. In addition, history has shown that reasonable use has apparently also always included snowmobile access. With regard to officially permitting snowmobile access, this is a situation where: - There are no signs about it (so it's no surprise no one knew it was prohibited) - No one we have discussed this with is aware of anyone ever having been confronted in the past (by neighbors nor the City) (so history has supported this use) - It's during a season when windows are closed (so noise from the snow mobiles wouldn't be an issue) - The ground is frozen (so maintenance costs for this use do not exist) - And it's public land It's hard to imagine why it would come up for discussion to start enforcing the rule, but given history and the notes above, we strongly support an update that allows snowmobile access to the lake through the fire lane at least on Grant Lorenz. Best, Robert & Connie Milstein Marie Darling From: Jeff Wyatt <wyattjeffreya@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2019 6:28 PM To: Planning Subject: Fire lane access in Shorewood Please rezone the Grant Lorenz Road fire lane to officially allow snowmobile access to Lake Minnetonka. Crescent Beach access is not sufficient as sole access as there is a conflict between the City of Shorewood and the City of Tonka Bay ordinances. While snowmobiles are allowed to access Lake Minnetonka from Crescent Beach on the City of Shorewood side of the beach, they are prohibited from accessing the lake on the City of Tonka Bay side of the beach. This nuance could make it confusing and difficult for snowmobile operators to follow the law and requires duplicative enforcement efforts. The Grant Lorenz Road is a safe access for riders. Grant Lorenz Road is a long and straight road with two bright streetlights, one right before the fire lane. The access at Crescent Beach requires riders to go up and down several hills and around several corners on public roadway if they have to bypass Grant Lorenz Road. In particular, the comer at Grant Lorenz Road and Birch Bluff road is a blind corner and having more snowmobiles rounding this corner is a safety hazard. The Grant Lorenz Road fire lane is wide enough for riders as well. The fire lane at Grant Lorenz Road has traditionally been used as a snowmobile access for many years without incident and has created a reasonable expectation The homeowner adjacent to the Grant Lorenz Road fire access has been posting home-made signs on the fire lane saying that motorized vehicles are not allowed. However, all throughout the year, there are often vehicles parked in this fire lane related to either his or other construction projects occurring nearby. By trying to restrict some traffic from using the fire lane and simultaneously using the fire lane as a personal parking spot, this homeowner is trying to make the fire lane part of his personal property. This is not fair to the public who pay for the use of this fire lane as residents of the City of Shorewood and sets a dangerous precedent. While there are actually two other fire lanes between Grant Lorenz Road and Crescent Beach, one at the end of Eureka Road and one about six houses down from Grant Lorenz Road at what appears to be called "Third Street" on some maps, neither of these fire lanes is maintained and cannot be located easily from the road. Neither would be a reasonable option for snowmobile access. For all of these reasons, the fire lane at Grant Lorenz Road should be rezoned to officially allow snowmobile access during the winter. Respectfully submitted, Jeff Wyatt 5335 Eureka Rd Shorewood, MN Marie Darling From: John Arnst <john@arnst.net> Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2019 6:50 PM To: Marie Darling Cc: sdavis@ci.shorewood.mn.us Subject Fire Lane Comments FIRE LANES JOINT WORK SESSION COMMENTS FOR CONSIDERATION: Fire Lanes Should be Pedestrian/Passive use Only. ( No Motorized Use ) Examples of such use: Canoe, Kayak, Paddle Board, Shoreline Fishing, Swimming, Pedestrian access to ice Neighboring encroachment Issues should be addressed and monitored All Fire Lane Boundaries should be Identified with Markers and Signage, Identifying them as such. Fire lanes should be treated as "linear parks" operating under the same rules and ordinances as the city parks ( No alcohol, loud music, curfew, no motorized vehicles, leash laws etc. ) with appropriate signage for enforcement. 1 10 January 2019 To: City of Shorewood From: Mark Bongard 26260 Birch Bluff Road Re: Fire Lane Access — Birch Bluff/Grant Lorenz To Whom It May Concern: I am the homeowner directly adjacent to the west of the Birch Bluff and Grant Lorenz Fire Lane. We are a fairly new resident, building the home and moving into that location in August 1017. Prior to acquiring the property, we spoke with the previous homeowner, the real estate agent and the City of Shorewood in person to learn and discuss the Fire Lane. It was expressed to me that it is a non -motorized access point for the public for members of the community to access Lake Minnetonka for Canoeing, paddle boarding, swimming, shore fishing and the like. It was said by all the parties we spoke with that it is quite a quiet and low usage location. And if we experience any abuse by motorized vehicles, we can contact the city or local police and they would work to eliminate the problems. So, we went forward with the purchase of the property in 2015. It took two years to design and build the current residence. During that time, we had seen and experienced many signs that people were driving motorized vehicles down the fire lane both winter and summer. We chalked it up to the fact no one was living on the property during the construction phase and we made no mind of the activity and made no complaints assuming upon our occupancy, people would take heed and discontinue their inappropriate usage. After moving into the home, to our dismay, the activity did not stop. Since it was late summer and the activity really only occurred during the day, we let it go. Once winter began and the ice was safe, we had a huge increase in usage by motor vehicles: Snowmobiles, ATV's, trucks, jeeps, trailered fish houses and motor cycles with spiked tires. Here in lies the difficulty for us, the usage happens all hours of the day and night. Engines revving, lights flashing into our home. As the winter progressed, the access became rutted and heaved from ice shifts and users would have to use more power to get over the humps or out of the ruts. Our home layout is such that our bedrooms are all on the western end of the property nearest the fire lane. The noise and lights become very loud and bright while you try to sleep. We are awakened several times a night and several nights a week. It has become very annoying and difficult to get restful sleep along with the frustration that individuals know they are using the fire lane inappropriately and without concern as to the impact on our lives. I realize this is a democratic process and all sides must get their time and chance to express their wants and wishes for the use of public property, but in consideration, you should be concerned for those most negatively affected by these types of decisions. For our family, shifting the use from a pedestrian usage to a limited use motorized access point is and will be a hardship for us. Not only will it continue to negatively impact our enjoyment of the lake, but also our health and well-being. Not to mention, it may also have consequence to us on an economic level, should this lane shift to allowing motorized usage, it will likely have repercussions to us in the future marketability and de -valuation of the sale of our property. As for us doing our Due Diligence prior to purchasing, we certainly would not have bought or built a home on this site, and at the very least, we would not have designed the home with sleeping quarters nearest the access knowing what we now have experienced. Thank you for your time and service effort into this matter. Mark Bongard Marie Darling From: Susan Anacker <anackerjohnson@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 7, 2019 10:01 AM To: Planning Subject: Comments on Fire Lanes Thanks for addressing the question of fire lanes! I use the fire lane at the end of Grant Lorenz Road. It must be Fire Lane 3. Also FL 6 next to Cresant Beach. I use the fire lane for access to walk, bike, swim, kayak, canoe, ice skate. I'd like to continue to do this. It is part of what makes Shorewood such a great place to live! I don't snowmobile but I believe this is a good use of fire lanes . I was concerned when a new owner took control of the property bordering the firelane. Signs were posted about limiting access for snowmobiles. I was confused as these didn't appear to be City signs but private. (were they? Does the city permit snowmobiles? ) This new neighbor also has much vegetation right on the trail .. I worry his arborvitae will block the trail. It would also help if fire lanes were marked, so we know that it is OK to access the lake at these points. Some are obvious some are not. Thanks for the help! Susan Anacker 26915 Noble Rd Marie Darling From: Gillian Blomquist <gillian@wbfamilylaw.com> Sent: Monday, January 14, 2019 8:36 PM To: Planning Subject: Fire Lane Ordinances Dear Planning Commission: I am writing to you regarding the issue of the reclassification of fire lanes in the City of Shorewood. Last year, my husband and I had cause to consider this issue when our use of the fire lane at the end of Grant Lorenz Road was questioned by a new homeowner whose property is adjacent to the fire lane. As long as we have resided here, that fire lane had been used for snowmobile and 4-wheeler access in the winter and as a kayak launch in the summer. After a big snowfall event, we often see snowmobilers riding down Grant Lorenz to access the lake. In the summer, we often see kayakers walking down Grant Lorenz to use the fire lane. We love that we are so close to the lake and thought it was fun to see all residents making use of the lake. But one evening when my husband was finishing plowing snow in our driveway, he drove the 4-wheeler onto the lake. He was greeted by the new neighbor who lives next to the fire lane with angry yelling stating that he wasn't allowed to access the lake there. This neighbor had also posted home-made signs on the fire lane stating that motor vehicles were not allowed. This interaction, which was very unpleasant and upsetting, began our interest in the issue of how fire lanes are supposed to be used and how they should be used in our city. In our research, we discovered that the City of Shorewood only has one fire lane that technically allows access to the lake, namely Crescent Beach. However, there are many reasons why the Crescent Beach access should not be the designated snowmobile access to the lake. First, as the city ordinance currently stands, there is a conflict between the City of Shorewood and the City of Tonka Bay. While snowmobiles are allowed to access Lake Minnetonka from Crescent Beach on the City of Shorewood side of the beach, they are prohibited from accessing the lake on the City of Tonka Bay side of the beach. This makes it hard for snowmobilers to follow the law depending on which part of the beach they cross into the lake. Second, as I stated above, the fire lane at Grant Lorenz Road has traditionally been used as a snowmobile access. When speaking to most neighbors, particularly those who have lived in the neighborhood for years or decades, they are surprised to hear that Grant Lorenz Road is not technically already a snowmobile access because this is how the fire lane has been traditionally used. Third, the Grant Lorenz Road is a safe access for riders. Grant Lorenz Road is a long and straight road with two bright streetlights, one right before the fire lane. The access at Crescent Beach requires riders to go up and down several hills and around several corners if they have to bypass Grant Lorenz Road. The Grant Lorenz Road fire lane is wide enough for riders as well. Fourth, the homeowner who lives adjacent to the Grant Lorenz Road fire is trying to limit certain vehicle traffic on the fire lane and not others. All throughout the year, there are often vehicles parked in this fire lane related to either his or other construction projects occurring nearby. It appears this homeowner is trying to restrict some traffic from using the fire lane and simultaneously use the fire lane as a personal parking spot. However, the fire lane is not part of his property, it is public right of way for use by all residents. For all of these reasons, I believe the fire lane at Grant Lorenz Road should be rezoned to officially allow snowmobile access during the winter. Thank you for your time and consideration of this issue. Gillian Blomquist PLEASE NOTF_. NEW EMAIL ADDRESS Gillian J. Blomquist Wermerskirchen & Blomquist, LLC 1001 Twelve Oaks Center Drive, Suite 1028 Wayzata, MN 55391 Office: (763) 447-6802 Fax: (763) 447-6809 Email: g_tllian@wb&rnilylaw.com This message and any attachments may contain confidential information protected by attorney -client or other privilege. If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, please reply to the sender that you received the message in error and then delete it. Unless we have a signed representation agreement, this message is not legal advice. CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB RD JOINT PARK/PLANNING COMMISSION SHOREWOOD CITY HALL WORKSESSION 7:00 PM TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2021 Due to the Centers for Disease Control's recommendation limiting the number of people present at a meeting, and pursuant to MN Statute §13D.02, the Shorewood Park and Planning Commission meetings will be held by electronic means. For those wishing to listen live to the meeting, please go to ci.shorewood.mn.us/current meeting for the meeting link. Contact the city at 952.960.7900 during regular business hours with questions. For link issues at meeting time, call 952.960.7906. 1. AGENDA CONVENE JOINT PARK/PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSESSION A. Roll Call Mangold Hirner Gallivan Schmid Garske MADDY GORHAM EGGENBERGER GAULT RIEDEL 2. B. Review Agenda DISCUSSION ITEM: A. Fire Lanes - (Att.-42A) 3. ADJOURN Park Commission Liaison for City Council Meeting on January 25 is Commissioner Mangold CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 Country Club Road • Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 952-960-7900 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us To: Parks Commission, Planning Commission and City Council From: Marie Darling, Planning Director Memo Date: January 12, 2021 Re: Continued Fire Lane Discussion for Fire Lanes 1, 3-6 Attachments: Memorandum for the November Meetings Section 611 - Snowmobile Regulations Section 1201.03 Subd. 19 Zoning Map with Fire Lanes Identified Correspondence Received Regarding Fire Lanes The information below is an excerpt of the information provided in the September 1, 2020 joint meeting specifically discussing the five remaining fire lanes where the Commissions determined more discussion was needed. Also attached is the memo from the November meetings, with the additional information requested by the Commissions and previously discussed. From the September 1 Report (Excerpted): Now that staff and all the commissioners were able to walk each of the 10 fire lanes, the next step is to consider: • How well does each fire lane serve the public as lake access? • Are the uses that are currently allowed appropriate in each of the fire lanes? • Are there other uses that are currently not permitted that could be approved based on the characteristics of each fire lane? • Should improvements be completed to allow the site to serve as public lake access more effectively? Currently allowed Uses: The current allowed uses are divided into three groups, with eight of the fire lanes in the group that allows the most passive uses. The uses are summarized below. Class 1: Allows pedestrian access to the lake, fishing from the shore, launching canoes and other small boats not requiring a trailer, and cross country skiing. Class 2: Allows pedestrian access to the lake, launching canoes and other small boats not requiring a trailer, cross country skiing, snowmobile access to the lake, swimming and parking. Class I Allows pedestrian access to the lake, fishing from the shore, launching canoes and other small boats not requiring a trailer, cross country skiing and allows the installation of a dock subject to six specific conditions listed in the regulations (attached). Class Fire Lanes 1 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10 2 6 3 5 . ll1 w "O ! I nri.ya ae1F i` �� r *� The adjacent Yacht Club has indicated that they would be willing to work with the City to provide lockable storage racks for personal watercraft to increase public access to the lake and would be willing to provide maintenance in the area. The boundary between the two parcels was not clearly defined on the original plat. Private improvements have been placed in the fire lane obstructing public access. Fire Lane 1 This fire lane provides the most commonly -used public access to the lake in both summer and winter Private improvements have been installed in the fire lane. 25 feet in width Fire Lane 3 '3 �r 1r tl Pal 25 feet wide .. 1. v OW 71" Fire Lane 4 ��55 • w+ x_ r�.3�F ,► f ,. yi Provides steep access point to the lake. N AW 66 feet wide got: AN �, ,s ,.1r� ;-' — Fire Lane 5 Y -` This fire lane provides a widening of Crescent Beach, but the Shorewood side of the fire lane is mostly a ditch to Lake Minnetonka for drainage purposes. Shorewood side is 33 feet wide Fire Lane 6 CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 Country Club Road . Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 952-960-7900 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us To: Park Commission and Planning Commission From: Marie Darling, Planning Director Meeting Dates: November 10, 2020 (Park Commission) November 17, 2020 (Planning Commission) Re: Fire Lanes Open Questions Attachments: DNR Input on Vacation Requests Information from Assessor on Tax Impact of Vacation Minutes from the September 1, 2020 meeting Correspondence Received At the joint work session on September 1, 2020, the Commissioners asked for three additional pieces of information: • How vacations are processed • The cost to provide additional maintenance • The tax implications if adjacent property owners receive additional property through vacations At that same meeting, the commissioners were generally in consensus with the following: ✓ They suggested that Fire Lane 2 may have no public park purpose and suggested keeping it as a utility access for lift station maintenance and removing that from the ordinance and zoning map ✓ They needed more information to decide on the future of Fire Lanes 3-6 ✓ They thought Fire Lanes 8-10 would have little public use in the future and should be considered for vacation THE VACATION PROCESS: The process to vacate streets, alleys, public grounds, public ways, etc. is governed by Minnesota Statute 412.851. The statute indicates that vacations may only be undertaken if it is in the public interest to do so. The City would need to hire a surveyor to prepare a legal description of the property(ies) if a legal description is not currently available. The City Council must order a public hearing to complete the vacation. Staff would then publish a notice of the meeting twice and post the notices in the entrance to City Hall and on the website at least 10 days before the hearing. The city is also required to send notice to the Commissioner of the DNR at least 60 days prior to the hearing. Additionally, at least 15 days prior to convening the public hearing, the Council or its designee must consult with the commissioner of natural resources to review the proposed vacation and advise the City on the evaluation based on specific criteria: 1. The proposed vacation and the public benefits to do so. 2. The present and potential use of the land for access to public waters. 3. How the vacation would impact conservation of natural resources. Staff also consulted with the DNR staff on how they would review the requests and they submitted the attached information. Additionally, an abutting property owner who suffers lack of access from the vacation of the area may be entitled to compensation. TAX IMPLICATIONS FOR RECEIVING PROPERTY OWNERS: The County Assessor provided information on the tax implications for the adjacent property owners that may receive additional land. The tax implications for the properties adjacent to Lake Minnetonka appear to be greater than the implications for the properties adjacent to Lake William. The Assessor's information is attached. MAINTENANCE. - The public works director provided the following information regarding the cost of any additional fire lane maintenance: The cost to provide a walkway to the shore or top of bluff are not fully known at this time. Staff are still asking for information from contractors, but any spraying that would be needed for noxious weeds would cost approximately $300-$400 per fire lane per application due to topography and other constraints. Removal of noxious weeds may require more than one spraying. The cost to provide signage at the boundaries and one sign stating the allowed uses and hours would cost a minimum of $120 per sign, plus posts and installation. Public works staff would not recommend changes to the ditch in Fire Lane 6 to allow for additional access as the ditch is highly important for stormwater purposes. He recommends the winter access be through the beach area instead. Regarding Fire Lane 2 — Larry Brown, Public Works Director recommends removing this as a fire lane, but the easements would need to remain. Liability: The City Attorney has advised that the liability of Fire Lanes is similar to any park property, whether left as they are or if opened up to encourage greater public access. Marie Darling From: Stewart, Nancy (DNR) <nancy.stewart@state.mn.us> Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2020 2:05 PM To: Marie Darling; Vickery, Martha L (DNR) Cc: Henzen, Rachel (DNR); Spooner -Mueller, Nancy (DNR) Subject: RE: Vacations of rights of way to Lake William and Lake Minnetonka in Shorewood Hi Maria, DNR staff are instructed to review each proposed vacation on its own merits. DNR staff from every division are asked for comments. The DNR comments on these three topics areas: a. Public benefits to doing the vacation, and b. Present and future potential public use of the area for recreation, and c. How the road vacation would impact the conservation of natural resources, wildlife/fish habitat, and cultural and historic resources in the area In most road vacation proceedings, the petitioner must prove that these roadways or public areas that abut or lead to public waters have no public value in either present or future sense. One of the DNR's tasks is to articulate the potential (current and future) value these areas might have, because once these lands are vacated they are likely lost to the public forever. Resolving trespass and encroachment issues from private landowners on the proposed vacated road that abuts public water is not enough of a reason to oppose or be unopposed to the proposed vacation of the road. The trespass/encroachment can be removed and resolved over time. When the road vacation is part of a comprehensive plan for the lake, and when the town, city, or county that has included an in-depth field and a public review process, as these lands offer access to people who cannot afford lakeshore property. The DNR would like to see that there is: • Adequate access to public waters during the summer and winter for both motorized and non - motorized activities. These public corridors often afford recreational opportunities such as shore fishing, canoeing, swimming, picnicking, observation and scenic viewing area, ice fishing and/or snowmobiling access. • No harm to natural resources. These public corridors abutting or terminating at waters often provide an intact riparian shore land zone that affords the ecological functions necessary to sustain fish and wildlife, and protect water quality. Additional shore land development causes major impacts. • A review if there are historical and cultural resources present, which is common for lakeshore parcels. The DNR strongly encourages these resources be protected. Hope this helps, please let me know if you have additional questions. Nancy Nancy Stewart Water Recreation Consultant I Division of Parks and Trails Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 500 Lafayette Road St. Paul, MN 55155 Phone: 651-259-5616 Email: nancy.stewart@_ state.mn.us mndnr.eov Marie Darling From: Michael J Smerdon <Michael.Smerdon@hennepin.us> Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2020 3:23 PM To: Marie Darling Subject: Impact of vacating fire lanes on neighboring properties value Hi Marie, As we discussed earlier today, if the City were to vacate the fire lanes and deed them to a neighboring residential property, it may or may not impact that property's assessed value. For those properties on Lake Minnetonka it would increase their lake frontage and therefore increase the assessed value of the property. The impact would be different for every property depending on how much lake shore that property currently has. If is it a lot with a large amount of lakeshore it would have a smaller impact than if it was deeded to a property with a small amount of frontage. The properties on Lake William would be impacted much less, as we value those lots as building sites, and the amount of frontage on Lake William has a much smaller impact on the values of those properties. If you have any other questions let me know, Michael Smerdon, SAMA Principal Residential Appraiser Hennepin County Assessor's Office Cell: 612-267-4480 Office: 952-249-4641 "Value and Classify Property, Uniformly and Accurately" **Please note, The Hennepin County Assessor's Office public facing locations are currently closed. In support of the health and safety of our taxpayers and employees, we are working remotely. We will get back to you as quickly as possible, and thank you in advance for your patience as we navigate new ways to serve you. Disclaimer: If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please immediately notify the sender of the transmission error and then promptly delete this message from your computer system, Shorewood, MN Code of Ordinances CHAPTER 611 SNOWMOBILES Section 611.01 Definitions 611.02 Operation generally 611.03 Manner of operation 611.04 Equipment 611.05 Application of other laws 611.06 Persons under certain age 611.07 Leaving snowmobile unattended 611.08 Chasing animals forbidden 611.09 Littering and obstructions 611.10 Violations 611.01 DEFINITIONS. For the purpose of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply unless the context clearly indicates or requires a different meaning. BOULEVARD. That portion of a street right-of-way not occupied by pavement. LRT RIGHT-OF-WAY. That portion of the Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority right-of-way within the City of Shorewood commencing on the east at the City of Excelsior corporate boundary and extending west to the City of Victoria corporate boundary. LRT TRAIL. That portion of the LRT right-of-way maintained for the use of the public for nonvehicular purposes. OPERATE. To ride in or on and control the operation of a snowmobile. OPERATOR. Every person who operates or is in actual physical control of a snowmobile. ORGANIZED EVENT. An event sponsored and conducted by the Park Commission, the Chamber of Commerce, Jaycees, American Legion or similar Council -recognized civic groups or associations. OWNER. A person, other than a lienholder, having the property in or title to a snowmobile and entitled to the use or possession thereof. PERSON. Includes an individual, partnership, corporation and any body of persons, whether incorporated or not, the State of Minnesota and its agencies and political subdivisions, except this definition does not include police officers or duly authorized and uninformed snow patrol personnel in the performance of their duties. PLOW RIDGE. The bank of snow remaining at the side of the road after the plow has passed. RIGHT-OF-WAY. Any property established for the use of the public for street or highway purposes by any federal, state, county or local government, by dedication, gift or statutory use, whether developed or undeveloped, paved or unpaved. American Legal Publishing Corp. 33 Shorewood, MN Code of Ordinances SAFETY or DEADMAN THROTTLE. A device which, when pressure is removed from the engine accelerator or throttle, causes the motor to be disengaged from the driving track. SNOWMOBILE. A self-propelled vehicle designed for travel on snow or ice or natural terrain steered by skis or runners. STREET or HIGHWAY. The entire width between boundary lines of any right-of-way or place when any part thereof is open to the use of the public, as a matter of right, for the movement of vehicular traffic. (1987 Code, § 802.01) 611.02 OPERATION GENERALLY. Subd. 1. A person may operate a snowmobile within the corporate limits of the city in only the following locations: a. Public waters as permitted by resolution of the LMCD or Shorewood City Council, but not closer than 150 feet to the shoreline except when entering or exiting the public waters traveling in a line perpendicular to the shoreline; b. On private property with the express permission of the property owner; C. On a right-of-way subject to the limitations set forth in this section; d. Such other locations and times as designated by resolution of the City Council for supervised training; e. A person operating a snowmobile in any part of the City of Shorewood except as provided herein shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Subd. 2. No person shall operate a snowmobile upon the roadway of any street or highway except for the purpose of direct travel from the person's home to the closest destination where snowmobiling is permitted by the shortest possible route and then only if travel on the adjacent street or highway right-of-way is restricted because of developed yards or physical barriers. Subd. 3. Persons may operate a snowmobile on the street side of the plow ridge and avoid obstacles by going into the street, not onto the boulevard. While traveling on streets, snowmobiles shall drive in the direction of traffic. Subd. 4. No person shall operate a snowmobile on the LRT trail or within the LRT right-of-way. Subd. 5. A snowmobile may make a direct crossing of a street or highway provided: a. The crossing is made at an angle of approximately 90 degrees to the direction of the street or highway and at a place where no obstruction prevents a quick and safe crossing; b. The snowmobile is brought to a complete stop before crossing the shoulder or main traveled way of the highway; C. The operator of the snowmobile must yield the right-of-way to all oncoming traffic; d. In crossing a divided street or highway, the crossing is made at an intersection of such street or highway with another public street or highway; e. The crossing is made with both front and rear lights illuminated. Subd. 6. Where no special hazard exists, the following speeds shall be lawful, and any speeds in excess shall be deemed unlawful: a. 10 miles per hour on public property within the city; American Legal Publishing Corp. 34 Shorewood, MN Code of Ordinances b. 10 miles per hour when operated on any public waters within the city closer than 150 feet to the shoreline. Subd. 7. No snowmobile shall enter any uncontrolled intersection without malting a complete stop. The operator shall then yield the right-of-way to any vehicles or pedestrians. Subd. 8. Notwithstanding any prohibition in this chapter, a snowmobile may be operated on a public thoroughfare in an emergency during the period of time when snow upon such thoroughfare renders travel by automobile impractical. Subd. 9. An operator shall bring the snowmobile to a stop and switch off the engine when flagged by a police officer or duly authorized uniformed snow patrol member. (1987 Code, § 802.02) (Ord. 358, passed 10-25-1999) 611.03 MANNER OF OPERATION. Except as otherwise specifically permitted and authorized, it is unlawful for any person to operate a snowmobile within the limits of the city in the following manner: Subd. 1. At any place while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or narcotics or habit forming drugs; Subd. 2. At a rate of speed greater than reasonable or proper under all the surrounding circumstances. Racing is prohibited except as may be specifically authorized as part of an organized event, which authorization shall be by permit issued by the City Council. Maximum speed limits shall be set from time to time by Council resolution; Subd. 3. At any place in a careless, reckless or negligent manner so as to endanger the person or property of another or to cause injury or damage thereto; Subd. 4. So as to tow any person or thing except through use of a rigid tow bar attached to the rear of the snowmobile; Subd. 5. When the noise level of the snowmobile exceeds 78 decibels on the A Scale at a distance of 50 feet from the snowmobile; Subd. 6. At anytime within the city between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on Friday and Saturday, and between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on Sunday through Thursday; Subd. 7. At any time between the first of April and the thirtieth of November; Subd. 8. Abreast of another snowmobile except when overtaking and passing another snowmobile. No passing shall be allowed if a pedestrian is within 30 feet of the snowmobile; Subd. 9. On the LRT Trail. (1987 Code, § 802.03) (Ord. 358, passed 10-25-1999) Penalty, see § 104.01 611.04 EQUIPMENT. It is unlawful for any person to operate or for the owner to cause or knowingly permit the operation of a snowmobile any place within the limits of the city unless it is equipped with the following: Subd. 1. Standard mufflers which are properly attached and in constant operation and which reduce the noise of operation of the motor to the minimum necessary for operation. Mufflers shall comply with Minn. Rules part 6100.5700, subp. 5 which certifies that a new American Legal Publishing Corp. 35 Shorewood, MN Code of Ordinances snowmobile complies with the noise limitation requirements of this rule. A manufacturer shall make such a certification based on measurements made in accordance with the SAE Recommended Practice J192(a) as set forth in the Report of the Vehicle Sound Level Committee, as approved by the Society of Automotive Engineers, September 1970 and revised November 1973; Subd. 2. Brakes adequate to control the movement of and to stop and hold the snowmobile under any conditions of operation; Subd. 3. A safety or deadman throttle in operating condition; Subd. 4. At least one clear lamp attached to the front, with sufficient intensity to reveal persons and vehicles at a distance of at least 100 feet ahead during the hours of darkness under normal atmospheric conditions. Such head lamp shall be so aimed that glaring rays are not projected into the eyes of an oncoming vehicle operator. It shall also be equipped with at least one red tail lamp having a minimum candle power of sufficient intensity to exhibit a red light plainly visible fiom a distance of 500 feet to the rear during the hours of darkness under normal atmospheric conditions. The lighting equipment shall be illuminated at all times the vehicle is operated; Subd. 5. Reflective material at least 16 square inches on each side, forward of the handlebars, so as to reflect or beam light at a 90 degree angle. (1987 Code, § 802.04) Penalty, see § 104.01 611.05 APPLICATION OF OTHER LAWS. City traffic ordinances shall apply to the operation of snowmobiles upon streets and highways and M.S. §§ 84.81 to 84.88 and M.S. Chapter 169, as amended, and except for those provisions relating to required equipment, are adopted by reference. (1987 Code, § 802.05) 611.06 PERSONS UNDER CERTAIN AGE. Subd. 1. It is unlawful for any person under 14 years of age to operate on streets, highways, public lands or frozen water or make a direct crossing of a street or highway as the operator of a snowmobile unless accompanied by a parent or guardian. A person 14 years of age or older, but less than 18 years of age, may operate a snowmobile on streets, highway, public lands or frozen waters as permitted under this section and make a direct crossing of a street or highway only if he or she has in his or her immediate possession a valid snowmobile safety certificate issued by the Commissioner of Natural Resources. Subd. 2. It is unlawful for the owner of a snowmobile to permit the snowmobile to be operated contrary to the provisions of this section. (1987 Code, § 802.06) Penalty, see § 104.01 611.07 LEAVING SNOWMOBILE UNATTENDED. American Legal Publishing Corp. 36 Shorewood, MN Code of Ordinances Every person leaving a snowmobile in a public place shall lock the ignition and remove the key from the snowmobile. (1987 Code, § 802.07) 611.08 CHASING ANIMALS FORBIDDEN. It is unlawful to intentionally drive, chase, run over or kill any animal, wild or domestic, with a snowmobile. (1987 Code, § 802.08) Penalty, see § 104.01 611.09 LITTERING AND OBSTRUCTIONS. Subd. 1. No person shall deposit paper, litter, rubbish or debris on public or private property or throw paper, litter, rubbish or debris from snowmobiles. Subd. 2. No person shall place obstructions, including ice blocks, on publicly -owned lands or frozen waters so as to interfere with the lawful use thereof by the public. Subd. 3. All traffic control devices used for routing snowmobile traffic away from private and public property shall be located on the same private or public property and shall be in place no earlier than November 1 and shall be removed on or before April 15. (1987 Code, § 802.09) 611.10 VIOLATIONS. Any person violating the provisions of this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor. (1987 Code, § 802.10) (Ord. 245, passed 10-28-1991; Ord. 280, passed 10-11-1993; Ord. 296, passed 1-23-1995; Ord. 314, passed 10-14-1996) Penalty, see § 104.01 American Legal Publishing Corp. 37 Section 1201.03 of the Shorewood Zoning Regulations Subd. 19. Fire lanes. a. Purpose. Recognizing that all fire lanes are to provide lake access to the public, this subdivision is established to identify, classify and regulate the use thereof based upon their historic use within the city. b. Use classifications. The use of fire lanes in Shorewood shall be restricted to one of the following classifications: (1) Class I may be used for pedestrian access to the lake, fishing from shore, launching canoes and other small boats not requiring a trailer and cross-country skiing; (2) Class II may be used for all of the activities as designated in Class I except fishing, as well as snowmobile access during the winter, parking and swimming; (3) Class III may be used only for pedestrian access to the lake, fishing, launching canoes and other small boats not requiring a trailer. In addition, a single dock may be installed subject to the following: (a) The person or group of persons installing the dock shall be Shorewood residents and apply for an annual building permit prior to installation of the dock; (b) The total length of the dock shall not exceed 25 feet; (c) The dock shall be installed by a professional installer and maintained in a safe and workmanlike manner; (d) The use of the dock shall be for the general public and shall not be limited to use by those who install it; (e) Docking of boats shall be limited to daytime hours only between sunrise and sunset; (f) The dock shall comply with all requirements of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District. C. Designation offire lanes. The following fire lanes shall be identified on the Official Zoning Map and shall be classified as follows: (1) Class I: 1-Enchanted Island, 2-Shady Island, 3-Grant Lorenze, 4- Third Street, 7-Ferncroft, 8-ivy Lane, 9-Rustic Way South, 10-Rustic Way North; (2) Class 11: 6-Crescent Beach; (3) Class III: 5-Eureka. d. General regulations. (1) Fire lanes shall be used only for the activities provided for in subdivision b above. No sporting activities shall be allowed which involve thrown objects such as catch, softball, baseball, frisbee, volleyball or football. (2) Fire lanes shall be subject to the rules and regulations contained in Shorewood Ordinance 140, as may be amended, (Chapter 902) pertaining to the use of city parks, including, but not limited to, use of intoxicating beverages. (3) Maintenance and improvements of fire lanes shall be the sole responsibility of the city. No one shall maintain or make improvements, except as modified herein, without the approval of the City Administrator/Clerk or his or her agent. (4) Except in Class II fire lanes, there shall be no parking of automobiles, boat trailers or snowmobiles on or adjacent to any of the fire lanes identified herein. (5) Except for snowmobiles in Class II fire lanes, motorized vehicles shall be prohibited on fire lanes. (6) Lots with side yards abutting fire lanes shall provide a total of 30 feet of side yard setback with no one side being less than ten feet. an 7, LLL. LL II aSCS -N Aro Marie Darling From: Melia Liester <tmliester@mchsi.com> Sent: Monday, January 4, 2021 8:12 PM To: Marie Darling Subject: Fire Lane Study (Birch Bluff Road Fire Lane #3) Dear Members of Shorewood City Council and Planning and Park Commissioners This email is regarding the upcoming planning commission meeting on 1/12/21 and the fire lane study. I've attended the last two planning commission meetings where this topic has been discussed, and I will be attending on 1/12 as well, but I wanted to provide the council some context as to where I, and several other Shorewood/Birch Bluff/Grant Lorenz/Oak Ridge Circle/Noble Road residents, are on this topic. What I/we would like to convey is that the residents of Shorewood involved in this matter represent the voice of many vs. the voice of a few who are unhappy with fire lane #3. We have all had access, by snowmobile, or ATV, for as long as we all have lived here, and the majority of us have lived here over 25 years. Basically, there is one party who is asking to have this fire lane restricted to foot traffic only, as you know. Ultimately, we propose that the fire lane #3 be amended to a Class II Firelane continuing the access we've for over the past 25+ years. Last year, the city blocked the fire lane, while they assessed the situation. We propose a trial option for the winter of 2021; that being limited hour access to snowmobiles and ATVs and posted speed limits, similar to what Tonka Bay allows. Please see the attached photo taken at the Bay Road access near Manitou road. Everyone is sensitive to the fact that there are two homes that border this fire lane, and that it is reasonable to ask for some restrictions. But to completely change what's been allowed for several years based on the request of one resident, without considering viable options implemented in neighboring lake communities, seems unreasonable. We all live in Shorewood for various reasons, but a primary reason is the small town feel, the sense of community and access to Lake Minnetonka! We want to be able to use the "shore" and the "woods" as we've been accustomed to for so many years. We seek a reasonable solution that provides reasonable access to the states top recreational lakes. I appreciate the City of Shorewood and staffs time and consideration. Tim Liester 26355 Oak Ridge Circle Marie Darling From: Melia Liester <tmliester@mchsi.com> Sent: Monday, January 4, 2021 8:14 PM To: Marie Darling Subject: Photo of fire lane in Tonka Bay per email just sent Hi Marie, I couldn't attach this photo for some reason, so here's the fire lane photo referenced in the email we just sent. Thanks! Tim Liester Michael S. Rosenberg MD Sagit V. Rosenberg MD 4595 Enchanted Point Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 September 17, 2020 City of Shorewood Planning and Park Commissioners Greg Lerud, City Administrator Marie Darling, Planning Director Shorewood City Hall 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 RE: Fire lane 1 Dear Commissioners, Administrator, and Director: We are the property owners of 4595 Enchanted Point (hereafter, "4595") adjacent to Fire lane 1 in the City of Shorewood and would like to include comments regarding the uses allowed in that fire lane. Thank you for directing us to the packet on the City website in preparation for the Planning Commission meeting held on September 1, 2020 at 7:00 pm. In the packet, made first available on Friday, August 28, 2020, we reviewed the letter sent by the Commodore of the Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club Marina, John E. Grzybek, dated January 15, 2019. In Mr. Grzybek's letter, there are a number of misstatements of fact regarding the adjacent fire lane that we wish to clarify. First, we moved into the adjacent property over 17 years ago and have since been regularly cleaning and maintaining the area of the fire lane. This has involved cleaning pre-existing trash including an old wheelbarrow, dock pieces, an old hose, and cinderblocks. Since our ownership of 4595 in May 2003, we have also performed regular maintenance of the grounds such as watering with the pre-existing underground sprinklers, fall and spring clean-up, mowing the lawn and cleaning up storm debris. The landscaping boulders and pine trees in the fire lane existed prior to our purchase of this property. The "weeds" on the fire lane, which the Commodore is referring to, was a wall of natural beauty with yellow and lavender hollyhocks, sumac and wild grape vines that were unilaterally mowed down and killed with Round Up by the Yacht Club under the direction of the current Commodore over the last 2 or 3 years leaving thorns, thistles and poison ivy (Exhibit A and B). This was apparently for the purpose of exerting some self-serving claim that they have maintained that property for potential territorial gain when in actuality their actions have been to the detriment of the neighborhood and the general public. At our meeting with Marie Darling, Greg Lerud, and Katriona Filipovitich Molasky regarding the adjacent fire lane, on January 22, 2020, we showed photos of the natural greenery and flowers as well as the landscaping which was present in the fire lane prior to the purchase of our property in May 2003. Approximately 3 years ago, erosion of the shoreline and subsequent flooding extending from the fire lane into our property carried with it large amounts of debris and dead fish. We repaired the extensive damage to the area. This included replacing some of the destroyed sod in the fire lane that pre -dated the purchase of our property, added a small area of rip rap and sand to preserve the shoreline and prevent further erosion and flooding, and continued to mow the lawn in order to make the area more safe and accessible. We were further dismayed by the Commodore's letter noting "[we have] explored selling [our] home, using photographs of the improvements [we] made on City property, as what appears to be an incentive for potential purchasers." Neither we nor our professional real estate agent have ever misrepresented the boundaries of our property to potential buyers and there are appropriate disclosures regarding the fire lane. This calls into question the Commodore's integrity and the general veracity of his statements --especially when considering his prior disbarment from the State of Minnesota for numerous instances of unethical, dishonest and inappropriate behavior, including misappropriation of client funds and failure to follow court orders. It is our belief that the Yacht Club, which started off as a sailing club, has repeatedly tried to change our quiet residential neighborhood by expanding their commercial business. Over the years, they have challenged their conditional use permit, expanding it from "sailboats" to "boats" allowing the addition of several moored power boats transforming their sailing club to a marina. This altered the character of the area from a quiet residential neighborhood to a busy commercial entity. This impact on the adjacent neighbors was significant enough to pursue repeated legal action (see Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club v. City of Shorewood in MN Court of Appeals in July 2009). In his letter, the Commodore references a letter sent 2 years prior expressing their desire to "lease or purchase" what they called the "wasted property" of the fire lane as it would "add to the City's tax base". Now, they are offering to provide lockable storage racks for "personal watercraft" which further exemplifies the Yacht Club's ambition to manipulate this land for the expansion of their own commercial goals, contrary to current residential zoning. It is reasonable to assume that the use of the storage racks, and for that matter the fire lane land in general, will be primarily for the benefit of their own patrons. We wish to make the following points clear: 1. We would like our neighborhood to remain a quiet residential neighborhood as it is currently zoned. We respectfully request to continue the classification of Fire Lane 1 as Class 1 and NOT expand commercial use of the adjacent Yacht Club to include more motor boat noise, especially with the addition of personal watercraft. 2. If the fire lane land adjacent to our property is abandoned by the City, is for lease or for sale, then we should have equal access to any transaction as we would be interested in acquiring the property as well. Finally, we are attaching copies of our email to the City and the City's response following our meeting regarding the adjacent fire lane, at the City Hall on January 22, 2020 demonstrating our cooperation with the City's requests (Exhibit Q. At that meeting, we also offered to remove at our own expense 1 or 2 of the boulders that pre -date our purchase of 4595 in order to allow public access through the landscaped portion of the fire lane. The City instructed us to await further recommendation of the Planning Committee and City Council. We remain ready and willing to continue to cooperate with the City. Incidentally, contrary to our compliance, the Yacht Club continues to store a boat lift on the fire lane property (please see Exhibit D). We appreciate City of Shorewood support in preserving current Fire Lane 1 classification and appeal to the Yacht Club to also respect the residential nature of our neighborhood. Thank you for your attention in this matter. Sincerely, Dr. Michael S. Rosenberg, MD, FSIR, FACR Dr. Sagit V. Rosenberg, MD 44 A T ` iAso.,t' gnaw ,tip °1?. VJ��4�lwiilq r rM1� I .ill. k, 64ka f d r y d 1 »Ilk, w � Gk 4 7 Get i( 1 . •.5'I I y I fir; r l� .,�,. 1: '*�' 1 .. dr l p1 � IU ids a s 'Vp 1111. rl 7 ,..Idl�' q flu Cl �� a a.y '• II'fl'a� - '> n�J� �PJ t �`� � � �r '� I d 1 b I ••h.' i I A A 11 Ilf 4�1 1 r� a! I z • w s r� , i i it !'+feFr_r�,t�i�•y+,�:�ew•'d�,'':+�.'z��is�.z��fa..� �kr�i=s�},.�� --1 z..:-��Xa's-�..., .•�. .�. _. _... EXHIBIT C Monday, August 31, 2020 at 20:34:14 Central Daylight Time Subject: RE: Follow up to our 1/22/20 meeting Date: Monday, January 27, 2020 at 8:08:53 AM Central Standard Time From: Greg Lerud To: Michael Rosenberg, Marie Darling, Katriona Molasky Attachments: image002.jpg Mr. and Mrs. Rosenberg Thank you for your email. Your email arrived before I was able to complete a summary letter, and your email accurately summarizes our meeting. We will let you know as soon as we are able to schedule a site visit for the parks and planning commission, which we anticipate will be in April. Following that meeting we will have some direction about the future plans for the city -owned property. Regards, Greg Greg Lerud, City Administrator City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 p: 952-960-7905 From: Michael Rosenberg<michaelsagit.rosenberg@comcast. net> Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020 12:45 AM To: Marie Darling <MDarling@ci.shorewood.mn.us>; Greg Lerud <GLerud@ci.shorewood.mn.us>; Katriona Molasky <KMolasky@cLshorewood.mn.us> Subject: Follow up to our 1/22/20 meeting Dear Marie, Greg and Katriona: Thank you for meeting with us on Wednesday, January 22, 2020 regarding clarification of City of Shorewood requirements with respect to the fire lane bordering our property on 4595 Enchanted Point. As you requested, we will proceed with moving the underground sprinklers and the two boat lifts in the spring, once the weather permits. In addition, as we agreed and per your suggestion, we look forward to meeting with City of Shorewood Page 1 of 2 EXHIBIT C (Cont) representatives on site to discuss any further requested modifications to the grounds within the context of the City's future plans for that area. We kindly appreciate advanced notice of the anticipated date and time of the site visit so we can coordinate. Please send any future correspondence regarding this or other matters to our home address in Eagan listed below. Sincerely, Michael and Sagit Rosenberg 4187 Amberleaf Trail Eagan, MN S5123 Cell: 651-387-3566 Page 2 of 2 EXHIBIT C (Cont) CITY OF SHOREWOOD 575S Country Club Road . Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 952.960.7900 * www.ci.shorewood.mn.us January 23, 2020 Michael and Sagit Rosenberg 4595 Enchanted Point Shorewood, MN 55331 Mr. and Ms. Rosenberg, Thank you for taking the time to come to City Hall and meet with us regarding the fire lane next to your property at 4595 Enchanted Point. It was valuable to have everyone together to discuss the situation as it stands and next steps in the process. You will be required to relocate the boat lift and any personal items within the fire lane property to your personal property. This can be done any time between now and May 1, 2020. You will also be required to cap the sprinkler system at the property line. Currently the sprinkler system extends into the fire lane and the line must be terminated at the property line. This work must be completed by June 1, 2020. The City will be doing to visits to all of the fire lanes in April with the Park and Planning Commissions. These meetings will be public and you are welcome to attend. They will be visiting the fire lane next to your property and will discuss next steps in regards to the use and necessary landscaping. Next steps in regards to landscaping will be determined after this visit. These discussions may result in new orders to move other private improvements. At the meeting it was also discussed that you are selling this property. You must disclose the improvement the property line to any new buyer. If there is anything in this letter that you feel does not represent your understanding of what was discussed at the meeting, please let us know so we can clarify to make sure we are all on the same page with this matter moving forward. Katriona Filipovitch Molasky Planning Technician Marie Darling From: Michael Blomquist <mike@mikeydidit.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2019 10:06 AM To: Planning Cc: Michael Blomquist Subject: Fire Lane At Grant Lorenz and Birch bluff I would like to ask that this fire lane be reclassified to a Class II allowing vehicles such as snowmobiles and 4- wheeler to access the lake in winter. I believe the fire lane is currently being misused by the homeowner who lives next to the fire lane. This is the same homeowner who posted signs on the fire lane last winter trying to block others from using the fire lane. Throughout the year, this homeowner uses the fire lane to park vehicles. I am attaching images of many different instances of this occurring. I am not interested in getting in a fight with neighbors, but this homeowner yelled at me last winter for trying to access the lake on a 4-wheeler, which is something that I and many others have always done. At the same time, he has no problem with others parking in the fire lane. The fire lane access to the lake is one of the reasons I moved to this area. I use the lake all year long, boating in summer and ice fishing in winter. I do not want to see this fire lane closed off from it's traditional use because of one resident. Thank you for your time and consideration of this issue. Thank you, Mike Blomquist a® w�r�r 8 sow, ..µ.me ..siftauw+aha' "...x•+�a•1%IR'�.-Gr+�aY.s/ :. -.-.ro .�.•.�I#1�w�� `. r 11 JAN 15 2019 C17� 01= SHO�EwQO The best little sailing and boating 1 e. Qub on Lake Mnnetonka. John E. Grzybek Commodore, Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club 730 Winslow Avenue Saint Paul, Minnesota 55107 (651) 592-0945 (cell phone) 15 January Tuesday 2019 Via &Mail City of Shorewood Planning and Park Commissioners Through Greg Lerud, City Administrator Shorewood City Hall 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota Re: Eire Lanes as Abandoned Property; Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club Comments; Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club Marina, 4580 Enchanted Point Dear Commissioners: Introduction I am the Commodore of the Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club ("UMYC"). I understand that you are taking comments regarding fire lane properties within the City of Shorewood. I am submitting this letter as the UMYC's public comment. Unfortunately, because of an ouvof--town conflict I am unable to appear personally before you. However, if you have any followrup questions I will be more than happy to respond either in writing or in person. I am grateful that you are evaluating fire lane property and what the City could do with it. I recognize that the UMYC's request about two years ago to explore acquiring or leasing the vacated fire lane property located at our marina may have started this process, thus, my comments are related to our self -interests. I do not know the extent of the I amount of fire lane property the City of Shorewood may have in its possession, but to evaluate what the City has in its inventory and what should become of that property as a matter of public policy is a wise decision. General Policy Suggestion; Next Best Use of Abandoned, Wasted City Property As a matter of general policy, I would suggest that once existing fire lane property is evaluated, and determined to be of no use to the City for positive public use and has essentially been abandoned by the City, it is "wasted" property and should be made available for its next best use, if any. The property could be leased or purchased. This would include use by private parties who could prevent any further "waste" to its value. It would also decrease the City's liability exposure related to the City's abandonment of that property. The fire lane property adjacent to our marina is a case in point. UMYC Experience With Fire Lane Property at its Marina The UMYC marina is located at 4580 Enchanted Point. At the southern most point of our property, is fire lane property that extends to the Upper Minnetonka Lake. See Exhibit A attached. Approximately two years ago, I approached the City of Shorewood to explore the possibility of acquiring that small and narrow piece of fire lane property located immediately south of our marina property. For all tends and purposes, it has been "wasted" by the City and abandoned. On the City fire lane property we inquired about, the UMYC has spent hundreds of dollars to clean that land because it had become wasted by the City. Neighbors (witnessed) had throw debris —leaves, tires, cut branches, a swing set, hose, concrete, and the like, that had accumulated for years. Because the overgrowth became so untenably to the UMYC and a potential hazard, I directed the cleanup at our expense. I was shocked at what we found. Countless volunteer hours were spent to clean up the abandoned, vacate property and now continue efforts to control the overgrowth. We continue to cut the weeds and gather dead -wood and debris, now only occasionally found, throughout our sailing and boating season, again, at our expense. Regardless, this property was long been forgotten by the City —abandoned, vacated, and wasted —and of no use to the City. Why is it of no use? Because this particular piece of fire lane property is narrow and can not be converted to any feasible public use. For instance, placing a public ramp for access to the lake is not practicable because there is too limited an area to park cars or trailers. Even if converted to a public park, it is limited to the amount of vehicles that could park. Moreover, to do a conversion of use would cause grave concerns about safety and security issues to the residential neighborhood and the marina. At the present time, the fire lane itself, although reaching to the lake, physically ends at the driveway of another private party's property located at 4595 Enchanted Lane. Although everything to the northeast and east of the lane is "fire lane property" and therefore City property, the owners of 4595 Enchanted Lane have significantly encroached on that City property. The owners have planted grass, created a sand beach, and have — without a permit —placed rip -rap on the shoreline. Five years ago, the UMYC stopped the owner from placing rip -rap all along the shoreline to the southern boundary of our marina property, and has abandoned that course of action. The owner had no permit of any kind. While I understand the owners do improvements on City property at their own risk, I find the treatment of the City to these property owners and our desire to acquire or lease the fire lane property places us at a distinct disadvantage. We've been working with City officials through proper channels while that owner has used the fire lane as his own. With that, the property owner has explored selling his home, using photographs of the improvements he made on City property, as what appears to be an incentive for potential purchasers. See Exhibit B attached. Policy; Lease or Purchase of .Abandoned Fire Lane Property The City should consider that if the lands are of no public use because of their configuration and are abandoned and determines the vacated lands of no use, it should allow interested parties to acquire those lands or lease the property. It would help the City. With the UMYC for instance, we have taken it upon ourselves to service the land by keeping it from further becoming a hazard and dumping grounds others created. Hence, by our actions, City liability has been minimized. However, the UMYC is under no obligation to continue this generosity. If leased, an agreement could be crafted to ensure the lands are not wasted and kept in good order. If allowed to purchase, at a reasonable price, it would add to the City's tax base. Invitation to Visit UMYC Marina and Fire Lane Property If you have any questions regarding my statements, please contact me. Further, if you would like to visit our marina and physically see the fire lane property at issue, I would be happy to.escort any City official through the site. Thank you for allowing me to offer this statement. I hope to attend anyfuture public hearing on this matter, if future hearings are scheduled. ---------- [ v s jisim :X3 A rm� a �zj Aso Z. if '04 410 a 51 a N - ti a T� F� 21` b G rt Y S J L%f I 3 el January 15, 2019 Ms. Marie Darling City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN. 55331 Re: Fire lane access to lakes. Dear Marie, I am writing to express my concern regarding fire lane access to lakes. I am a resident of Shorewood and use the Class II fire lanes for snowmobile access to access the Iake. Snowmobiling is currently allowed on city streets currently and our only access to the lake is the Class II fire lane. I am against altering the city code regarding use of the fire lanes for vehicle access. Please keep my updated on city staff recommendations and any proposed changes to Subd. 19. Fire lanes. Sincerely, RECEIVED Martin Woody JAN 1 5 2019 Pz CITY OF SHOREWOOD oZlPoS .S�r�ir, r,�`x Marie Darling From: Robert Milstein <robert@milstein.com> on behalf of connieandrob@milstein.com Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2019 5:41 PM To: Planning Subject: RE: Workshop on Fire Lanes January 15 Planning & Parks Commissions, We are unable to attend the workshop tonight, but learned of this discussion and how it relates to the fire lane at the lake end of Grant Lorenz Rd (nearest our house). Despite living in Shorewood for -just five years, we were well aware of this convenient public lake access. Further, we were aware that it was the primary access to the lake for snowmobilers in our area, and we were very surprised when we learned that snowmobile access through that fire lane is prohibited by the city. Because of this, we wanted to share a few short thoughts: - Safety First: Fire lanes should by nature never be blocked, which rules out any consideration of use for parking or storage at any time. Maintenance Second: Any use of the fire lanes that would cause an unacceptable maintenance expense deserves careful review — we're talking about taxes here. Reasonable Use Third: For ALL of the fire lanes, especially the one on Grant Lorenz, reasonable use should be strongly considered (bearing in mind the above two points). Clearly, reasonable use includes walking in/out, including portage. In addition, history has shown that reasonable use has apparently also always included snowmobile access. With regard to officially permitting snowmobile access, this is a situation where: - There are no signs about it (so it's no surprise no one knew it was prohibited) - No one we have discussed this with is aware of anyone ever having been confronted in the past (by neighbors nor the City) (so history has supported this use) - It's during a season when windows are closed (so noise from the snow mobiles wouldn't be an issue) - The ground is frozen (so maintenance costs for this use do not exist) - And it's public land It's hard to imagine why it would come up for discussion to start enforcing the rule, but given history and the notes above, we strongly support an update that allows snowmobile access to the lake through the fire lane at least on Grant Lorenz. Best, Robert & Connie Milstein Marie Darling From: Jeff Wyatt <wyattjeffreya@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2019 6:28 PM To: Planning Subject: Fire lane access in Shorewood Please rezone the Grant Lorenz Road fire lane to officially allow snowmobile access to Lake Minnetonka. Crescent Beach access is not sufficient as sole access as there is a conflict between the City of Shorewood and the City of Tonka Bay ordinances. While snowmobiles are allowed to access Lake Minnetonka from Crescent Beach on the City of Shorewood side of the beach, they are prohibited from accessing the lake on the City of Tonka Bay side of the beach. This nuance could make it confusing and difficult for snowmobile operators to follow the law and requires duplicative enforcement efforts. The Grant Lorenz Road is a safe access for riders. Grant Lorenz Road is a long and straight road with two bright streetlights, one right before the fire lane. The access at Crescent Beach requires riders to go up and down several hills and around several corners on public roadway if they have to bypass Grant Lorenz Road. In particular, the corner at Grant Lorenz Road and Birch Bluff road is a blind corner and having more snowmobiles rounding this corner is a safety hazard. The Grant Lorenz Road fire lane is wide enough for riders as well. The fire lane at Grant Lorenz Road has traditionally been used as a snowmobile access for many years without incident and has created a reasonable expectation The homeowner adjacent to the Grant Lorenz Road fire access has been posting home-made signs on the fire lane saying that motorized vehicles are not allowed. However, all throughout the year, there are often vehicles parked in this fire lane related to either his or other construction projects occurring nearby. By trying to restrict some traffic from using the fire lane and simultaneously using the fire lane as a personal parking spot, this homeowner is trying to make the fire lane part of his personal property. This is not fair to the public who pay for the use of this fire lane as residents of the City of Shorewood and sets a dangerous precedent. While there are actually two other fire lanes between Grant Lorenz Road and Crescent Beach, one at the end of Eureka Road and one about six houses down from Grant Lorenz Road at what appears to be called "Third Street" on some maps, neither of these fire lanes is maintained and cannot be located easily from the road. Neither would be a reasonable option for snowmobile access. For all of these reasons, the fire lane at Grant Lorenz Road should be rezoned to officially allow snowmobile access during the winter. Respectfully submitted, Jeff Wyatt 5335 Eureka Rd Shorewood, MN Marie Darling From: John Arnst <john@arnst.net> Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2019 6:50 PM To: Marie Darling Cc: sdavis@ci.shorewood.mn.us Subject: Fire Lane Comments FIRE LANES JOINT WORK SESSION COMMENTS FOR CONSIDERATION: Fire Lanes Should be Pedestrian/Passive use Only. ( No Motorized Use ) Examples of such use: Canoe, Kayak, Paddle Board, Shoreline Fishing, Swimming, Pedestrian access to ice Neighboring encroachment Issues should be addressed and monitored All Fire Lane Boundaries should be Identified with Markers and Signage, Identifying them as such. Fire lanes should be treated as "linear parks" operating under the same rules and ordinances as the city parks ( No alcohol, loud music, curfew, no motorized vehicles, leash laws etc. ) with appropriate signage for enforcement. 1 10 January 2019 To: City of Shorewood From: Mark Bongard 26260 Birch Bluff Road Re: Fire Lane Access — Birch Bluff/Grant Lorenz To Whom It May Concern: I am the homeowner directly adjacent to the west of the Birch Bluff and Grant Lorenz Fire Lane. We are a fairly new resident, building the home and moving into that location in August 1017. Prior to acquiring the property, we spoke with the previous homeowner, the real estate agent and the City of Shorewood in person to learn and discuss the Fire Lane. It was expressed to me that it is a non -motorized access point for the public for members of the community to access Lake Minnetonka for Canoeing, paddle boarding, swimming, shore fishing and the like. It was said by all the parties we spoke with that it is quite a quiet and low usage location. And if we experience any abuse by motorized vehicles, we can contact the city or local police and they would work to eliminate the problems. So, we went forward with the purchase of the property in 2015. It took two years to design and build the current residence. During that time, we had seen and experienced many signs that people were driving motorized vehicles down the fire lane both winter and summer. We chalked it up to the fact no one was living on the property during the construction phase and we made no mind of the activity and made no complaints assuming upon our occupancy, people would take heed and discontinue their inappropriate usage. After moving into the home, to our dismay, the activity did not stop. Since it was late summer and the activity really only occurred during the day, we let it go. Once winter began and the ice was safe, we had a huge increase in usage by motor vehicles: Snowmobiles, ATVs, trucks, jeeps, trailered fish houses and motor cycles with spiked tires. Here in lies the difficulty for us, the usage happens all hours of the day and night. Engines revving, lights flashing into our home. As the winter progressed, the access became rutted and heaved from ice shifts and users would have to use more power to get over the humps or out of the ruts. Our home layout is such that our bedrooms are all on the western end of the property nearest the fire lane. The noise and lights become very loud and bright while you try to sleep. We are awakened several times a night and several nights a week. It has become very annoying and difficult to get restful sleep along with the frustration that individuals know they are using the fire lane inappropriately and without concern as to the impact on our lives. I realize this is a democratic process and all sides must get their time and chance to express their wants and wishes for the use of public property, but in consideration, you should be concerned for those most negatively affected by these types of decisions. For our family, shifting the use from a pedestrian usage to a limited use motorized access point is and will be a hardship for us. Not only will it continue to negatively impact our enjoyment of the lake, but also our health and well-being. Not to mention, it may also have consequence to us on an economic level, should this lane shift to allowing motorized usage, it will likely have repercussions to us in the future marketability and de -valuation of the sale of our property. As for us doing our Due Diligence prior to purchasing, we certainly would not have bought or built a home on this site, and at the very least, we would not have designed the home with sleeping quarters nearest the access knowing what we now have experienced. Thank you for your time and service effort into this matter, Mark Bongard Marie Darling From: Susan Anacker <anackerjohnson@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 7, 2019 10:01 AM To: Planning Subject: Comments on Fire Lanes Thanks for addressing the question of fire lanes! 1 use the fire lane at the end of Grant Lorenz Road. It must be Fire Lane 3. Also FL 6 next to Cresant Beach. I use the fire lane for access to walk, bike, swim, kayak, canoe, ice skate. I'd like to continue to do this. It is part of what makes Shorewood such a great place to live! I don't snowmobile but I believe this is a good use of fire lanes. I was concerned when a new owner took control of the property bordering the firelane. Signs were posted about limiting access for snowmobiles. I was confused as these didn't appear to be City signs but private. (were they? Does the city permit snowmobiles? ) This new neighbor also has much vegetation right on the trail .. I worry his arborvitae will block the trail. It would also help if fire lanes were marked, so we know that it is OK to access the lake at these points. Some are obvious some are not. Thanks for the help! Susan Anacker 26915 Noble Rd Marie Darling From: Gillian Blomquist <gillian@wbfamilylaw.com> Sent: Monday, January 14, 2019 8:36 PM To: Planning Subject: Fire Lane Ordinances Dear Planning Commission: I am writing to you regarding the issue of the reclassification of fire lanes in the City of Shorewood. Last year, my husband and I had cause to consider this issue when our use of the fire lane at the end of Grant Lorenz Road was questioned by a new homeowner whose property is adjacent to the fire lane. As long as we have resided here, that fire lane had been used for snowmobile and 4-wheeler access in the winter and as a kayak launch in the summer. After a big snowfall event, we often see snowmobilers riding down Grant Lorenz to access the lake. In the summer, we often see kayakers walking down Grant Lorenz to use the fire lane. We love that we are so close to the lake and thought it was fun to see all residents making use of the lake. But one evening when my husband was finishing plowing snow in our driveway, he drove the 4-wheeler onto the lake. He was greeted by the new neighbor who lives next to the fire lane with angry yelling stating that he wasn't allowed to access the lake there. This neighbor had also posted home-made signs on the fire lane stating that motor vehicles were not allowed. This interaction, which was very unpleasant and upsetting, began our interest in the issue of how fire lanes are supposed to be used and how they should be used in our city. In our research, we discovered that the City of Shorewood only has one fire lane that technically allows access to the lake, namely Crescent Beach. However, there are many reasons why the Crescent Beach access should not be the designated snowmobile access to the lake. First, as the city ordinance currently stands, there is a conflict between the City of Shorewood and the City of Tonka Bay. While snowmobiles are allowed to access Lake Minnetonka from Crescent Beach on the City of Shorewood side of the beach, they are prohibited from accessing the lake on the City of Tonka Bay side of the beach. This makes it hard for snowmobilers to follow the law depending on which part of the beach they cross into the lake. Second, as I stated above, the fire lane at Grant Lorenz Road has traditionally been used as a snowmobile access. When speaking to most neighbors, particularly those who have lived in the neighborhood for years or decades, they are surprised to hear that Grant Lorenz Road is not technically already a snowmobile access because this is how the fire lane has been traditionally used. Third, the Grant Lorenz Road is a safe access for riders. Grant Lorenz Road is a long and straight road with two bright streetlights, one right before the fire lane. The access at Crescent Beach requires riders to go up and down several hills and around several corners if they have to bypass Grant Lorenz Road. The Grant Lorenz Road fire lane is wide enough for riders as well. Fourth, the homeowner who lives adjacent to the Grant Lorenz Road fire is trying to limit certain vehicle traffic on the fire lane and not others. All throughout the year, there are often vehicles parked in this fire lane related to either his or other construction projects occurring nearby. It appears this homeowner is trying to restrict some traffic from using the fire lane and simultaneously use the fire lane as a personal parking spot. However, the fire lane is not part of his property, it is public right of way for use by all residents. For all of these reasons, I believe the fire lane at Grant Lorenz Road should be rezoned to officially allow snowmobile access during the winter. Thank you for your time and consideration of this issue. Gillian Blomquist PLEASE NOTE NEW EMAIL ADDRESS Gillian J. Blomquist Wermersldrehen & Blomquist, LLC 1001 Twelve Oaks Center Drive, Suite 1028 Wayzata, MN 55391 Office: (163) 447-6802 Fax: (763) 447-6809 Email: RLM@Wbfaniflylaw.com gnwbfamilylaw.com This message and any attachments may contain confidential information protected by attorney -client or other privilege. If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, please reply to the sender that you received the message in error and then delete it. Unless we have a signed representation agreement, this message is not legal advice. Marie Darling From: Melia Liester <tmliester@mchsi.com> Sent: Monday, January 4, 2021 8:12 PM To: Marie Darling Subject: Fire Lane Study (Birch Bluff Road Fire Lane #3) Dear Members of Shorewood City Council and Planning and Park Commissioners This email is regarding the upcoming planning commission meeting on 1/12/21 and the fire lane study. I've attended the last two planning commission meetings where this topic has been discussed, and I will be attending on 1/12 as well, but I wanted to provide the council some context as to where I, and several other Shorewood/Birch Bluff/Grant Lorenz/Oak Ridge Circle/Noble Road residents, are on this topic. What I/we would like to convey is that the residents of Shorewood involved in this matter represent the voice of many vs. the voice of a few who are unhappy with fire lane #3. We have all had access, by snowmobile, or ATV, for as long as we all have lived here, and the majority of us have lived here over 25 years. Basically, there is one party who is asking to have this fire lane restricted to foot traffic only, as you know. Ultimately, we propose that the fire lane #3 be amended to a Class II Firelane continuing the access we've for over the past 25+ years. Last year, the city blocked the fire lane, while they assessed the situation. We propose a trial option for the winter of 2021; that being limited hour access to snowmobiles and ATVs and posted speed limits, similar to what Tonka Bay allows. Please see the attached photo taken at the Bay Road access near Manitou road. Everyone is sensitive to the fact that there are two homes that border this fire lane, and that it is reasonable to ask for some restrictions. But to completely change what's been allowed for several years based on the request of one resident, without considering viable options implemented in neighboring lake communities, seems unreasonable. We all live in Shorewood for various reasons, but a primary reason is the small town feel, the sense of community and access to Lake Minnetonka! We want to be able to use the "shore" and the "woods" as we've been accustomed to for so many years. We seek a reasonable solution that provides reasonable access to the states top recreational lakes. I appreciate the City of Shorewood and staffs time and consideration. Tim Liester 26355 Oak Ridge Circle Marie Darling From: John Arnst <john@arnst.net> Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2019 6:50 PM To: Marie Darling Cc: sdavis@ci.shorewood.mn.us Subject: Fire Lane Comments FIRE LANES JOINT WORK SESSION COMMENTS FOR CONSIDERATION: Fire Lanes Should be Pedestrian/Passive use Only. ( No Motorized Use ) Examples of such use: Canoe, Kayak, Paddle Board, Shoreline Fishing, Swimming, Pedestrian access to ice Neighboring encroachment Issues should be addressed and monitored All Fire Lane Boundaries should be Identified with Markers and Signage, Identifying them as such. Fire lanes should be treated as "linear parks" operating under the same rules and ordinances as the city parks ( No alcohol, loud music, curfew, no motorized vehicles, leash laws etc. ) with appropriate signage for enforcement. 1 10 January 2019 To: City of Shorewood From: Mark Bongard 26260 Birch Bluff Road Re: Fire Lane Access — Birch Bluff/Grant Lorenz To Whom It May Concern: I am the homeowner directly adjacent to the west of the Birch Bluff and Grant Lorenz Fire Lane. We are a fairly new resident, building the home and moving into that location in August 1017. Prior to acquiring the property, we spoke with the previous homeowner, the real estate agent and the City of Shorewood in person to learn and discuss the Fire Lane. It was expressed to me that it is a non -motorized access point for the public for members of the community to access Lake Minnetonka for Canoeing, paddle boarding, swimming, shore fishing and the like. It was said by all the parties we spoke with that it is quite a quiet and low usage location. And if we experience any abuse by motorized vehicles, we can contact the city or local police and they would work to eliminate the problems. So, we went forward with the purchase of the property in 2015. It took two years to design and build the current residence. During that time, we had seen and experienced many signs that people were driving motorized vehicles down the fire lane both winter and summer. We chalked it up to the fact no one was living on the property during the construction phase and we made no mind of the activity and made no complaints assuming upon our occupancy, people would take heed and discontinue their inappropriate usage. After moving into the home, to our dismay, the activity did not stop. Since it was late summer and the activity really only occurred during the day, we let it go. Once winter began and the ice was safe, we had a huge increase in usage by motor vehicles: Snowmobiles, ATVs, trucks, jeeps, trailered fish houses and motor cycles with spiked tires. Here in lies the difficulty for us, the usage happens all hours of the day and night. Engines revving, lights flashing into our home. As the winter progressed, the access became rutted and heaved from ice shifts and users would have to use more power to get over the humps or out of the ruts. Our home layout is such that our bedrooms are all on the western end of the property nearest the fire lane. The noise and lights become very loud and bright while you try to sleep. We are awakened several times a night and several nights a week. It has become very annoying and difficult to get restful sleep along with the frustration that individuals know they are using the fire lane inappropriately and without concern as to the impact on our lives. I realize this is a democratic process and all sides must get their time and chance to express their wants and wishes for the use of public property, but in consideration, you should be concerned for those most negatively affected by these types of decisions. For our family, shifting the use from a pedestrian usage to a limited use motorized access point is and will be a hardship for us. Not only will it continue to negatively impact our enjoyment of the lake, but also our health and well-being. Not to mention, it may also have consequence to us on an economic level, should this lane shift to allowing motorized usage, it will likely have repercussions to us in the future marketability and de -valuation of the sale of our property. As for us doing our Due Diligence prior to purchasing, we certainly would not have bought or built a home on this site, and at the very least, we would not have designed the home with sleeping quarters nearest the access knowing what we now have experienced. Thank you for your time and service effort into this matter. Mark Bongard Marie Darling From: Susan Anacker <anackerjohnson@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 7, 2019 10:01 AM To: Planning Subject: Comments on Fire Lanes Thanks for addressing the question of fire lanes! I use the fire lane at the end of Grant Lorenz Road. It must be Fire Lane 3. Also FL 6 next to Cresant Beach. I use the fire lane for access to walk, bike, swim, kayak, canoe, ice skate. I'd like to continue to do this. It is part of what makes Shorewood such a great place to live! I don't snowmobile but I believe this is a good use of fire lanes . I was concerned when a new owner took control of the property bordering the firelane. Signs were posted about limiting access for snowmobiles. I was confused as these didn't appear to be City signs but private. (were they? Does the city permit snowmobiles? ) This new neighbor also has much vegetation right on the trail .. I worry his arborvitae will block the trail. It would also help if fire lanes were marked, so we know that it is OK to access the lake at these points. Some are obvious some are not. Thanks for the help! Susan Anacker 26915 Noble Rd Marie Darlin From: Gillian Blomquist <gillian@wbfamilylaw.com> Sent: Monday, January 14, 2019 8:36 PM To: Planning Subject: Fire Lane Ordinances Dear Planning Commission: I am writing to you regarding the issue of the reclassification of fire lanes in the City of Shorewood. Last year, my husband and I had cause to consider this issue when our use of the fire lane at the end of Grant Lorenz Road was questioned by a new homeowner whose property is adjacent to the fire lane. As long as we have resided here, that fire lane had been used for snowmobile and 4-wheeler access in the winter and as a kayak launch in the summer. After a big snowfall event, we often see snowmobilers riding down Grant Lorenz to access the lake. In the summer, we often see kayakers walking down Grant Lorenz to use the fire lane. We love that we are so close to the lake and thought it was fun to see all residents making use of the lake. But one evening when my husband was finishing plowing snow in our driveway, he drove the 4-wheeler onto the lake. He was greeted by the new neighbor who lives next to the fire lane with angry yelling stating that he wasn't allowed to access the lake there. This neighbor had also posted home-made signs on the fire lane stating that motor vehicles were not allowed. This interaction, which was very unpleasant and upsetting, began our interest in the issue of how fire lanes are supposed to be used and how they should be used in our city. In our research, we discovered that the City of Shorewood only has one fire lane that technically allows access to the lake, namely Crescent Beach. However, there are many reasons why the Crescent Beach access should not be the designated snowmobile access to the lake. First, as the city ordinance currently stands, there is a conflict between the City of Shorewood and the City of Tonka Bay. While snowmobiles are allowed to access Lake Minnetonka from Crescent Beach on the City of Shorewood side of the beach, they are prohibited from accessing the lake on the City of Tonka Bay side of the beach. This makes it hard for snowmobilers to follow the law depending on which part of the beach they cross into the lake. Second, as I stated above, the fire lane at Grant Lorenz Road has traditionally been used as a snowmobile access. When speaking to most neighbors, particularly those who have lived in the neighborhood for years or decades, they are surprised to hear that Grant Lorenz Road is not technically already a snowmobile access because this is how the fire lane has been traditionally used. Third, the Grant Lorenz Road is a safe access for riders. Grant Lorenz Road is a long and straight road with two bright streetlights, one right before the fire lane. The access at Crescent Beach requires riders to go up and down several hills and around several corners if they have to bypass Grant Lorenz Road. The Grant Lorenz Road fire lane is wide enough for riders as well. Fourth, the homeowner who lives adjacent to the Grant Lorenz Road fire is trying to limit certain vehicle traffic on the fire lane and not others. All throughout the year, there are often vehicles parked in this fire lane related to either his or other construction projects occurring nearby. It appears this homeowner is trying to restrict some traffic from using the fire lane and simultaneously use the fire lane as a personal parking spot. However, the fire lane is not part of his property, it is public right of way for use by all residents. For all of these reasons, I believe the fire lane at Grant Lorenz Road should be rezoned to officially allow snowmobile access during the winter. Thank you for your time and consideration of this issue. Gillian Blomquist PLEASE NOTE NEW EMAIL ADDRESS Gillian J. Blomquist Wermerskirchen c& Blomquist, I-,1,C 1001 Twelve Oaks Center Drive, Suite 1028 Wayzata, 14IN 55391 Office: (763) 447-6802 Fax: (763) 447-6809 Email: gillian ,wbfamilylaw.com ']'his message and any attachments may contain confidential information protected by attorney -client or other privilege. If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, please reply to the sender that you received the message in error and then delete it. Unless we have a signed representation agreement, this message is not legal advice. Marie Darling From: Larry Brown Sent: Friday, November 6, 2020 11:54 AM To: Marie Darling Cc: Greg Lerud Subject: FW: Fire lanes Shorewood Regarding fire lanes. Larry Brown, PE Director of Public Works For the City of Shorewood Direct 952-960-7913 From: NOZAL, GAIL <gail.nozal@davey.com> Sent: Friday, November 6, 2020 11:30 AM To: Larry Brown <LBrown@ci.shorewood.mn.us> Subject: Re: Fire lanes Shorewood Larry - I worked with Travis, the manager of the Davey Eden Prairie office to put together this ball park bid and feedback regarding accessibility on a few of the sites. We do have a number of pictures of the sites in addition to what you have provided. We are happy to work on this further and provide more pictures as needed. The ballpark estimate to clear a 10' wide path (if possible) on each of the fire lanes is $25,300 (city staff to chip or haul debris). Please Note: We did not feel that you could get a 10' wide path on all of these done at this time due to debris. There could be a path through to pull a fire hose. Below are some specific notes on accessibility on a few of the sites. All the others have pruning and removal needs. These below have more specific issues. Fire Lane 1 • There are a few large cottonwood trees that have beaver damage at the base that should be removed for safety purposes. • Remove existing large debris that is laying on the ground and along waterfront. • It would be difficult to access the waterfront with a fire truck because of terrain and boulder wall that are in the way from neighbors landscaping. • As of now there is an opening to drag a hose directly to water. • Tree management is needed on this site because of the large tree with structural damage. Fire Lane 4 • This area would be difficult to drive a fire truck in • To provide a clear path to the lake dragging a hose would require some smaller tree removals. • The neighbors planted a Spruce tree that is the center of the path that could be removed to give a clear drag. Fire Lane 8 • This lane would not accommodate a truck to drive to waterfront. • Remove smaller trees and prune limbs back to accommodate a clear dragging area for a hose to water. Fire Lane 9 • Unable to access with a Fire Truck • Remove smaller trees and limbs to allow for a clear dragging path to waterfront. • Neighbors have dumped logs and debris that will need to be cleaned up. Fire Lane 10 • Unable to access with Fire Truck. • Remove smaller trees and limbs to allow for a clear dragging path to waterfront. Gail On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 1:09 PM Larry Brown <LBrown@ci.shorewood.mn.us> wrote: Good afternoon Gail: we have a project/study that has been undertaken regarding Fire Lane Accesses to the lakes. There are 10 of these under study. I have attached 2 files for each fire lane. One is off of the street map from Hennepin County, with a second one being an aerial of the same map. The question has been asked by our Planning Commission, how much it would cost to clear these for a "path." Since they have not defined the parameters of such, I would assume that we are talking a path of approximately 10 feet. That would accommodate a vehicle (worst case for emergency access) and allow for pedestrian access. The Planning Commission did have the fire lanes staked out in the field. Having stated that, as you know, stakes have a life expectancy of about two days before somebody rips them out. 2 Have also attached our City Planner's report to the Commission on this subject. Therefore, the City is wondering if you could ballpark costs to clear paths? If you need assistance locating these in the field, let me know and I will get assistance. As always, Thank you! Larry Brown, PE Director of Public Works For the City of Shorewood Direct 952-960-7913 Gail Nozal I Area Manager ISA Board Certified Master Arborist/Municipal Specialist #MN-0276BM Davey Resource Group, Inc. Natural Resource and Ecological Consulting C: 651.442.7153 Sign up for Environmental Consulting Marie Darling From: Stewart, Nancy (DNR) <nancy.stewart@state.mn.us> Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2020 2:05 PM To: Marie Darling; Vickery, Martha L (DNR) Cc: Henzen, Rachel (DNR); Spooner -Mueller, Nancy (DNR) Subject: RE: Vacations of rights of way to Lake William and Lake Minnetonka in Shorewood Hi Maria, DNR staff are instructed to review each proposed vacation on its own merits. DNR staff from every division are asked for comments. The DNR comments on these three topics areas: a. Public benefits to doing the vacation, and b. Present and future potential public use of the area for recreation, and c. How the road vacation would impact the conservation of natural resources, wildlife/fish habitat, and cultural and historic resources in the area In most road vacation proceedings, the petitioner must prove that these roadways or public areas that abut or lead to public waters have no public value in either present or future sense. One of the DNR's tasks is to articulate the potential (current and future) value these areas might have, because once these lands are vacated they are likely lost to the public forever. Resolving trespass and encroachment issues from private landowners on the proposed vacated road that abuts public water is not enough of a reason to oppose or be unopposed to the proposed vacation of the road. The trespass/encroachment can be removed and resolved over time. When the road vacation is part of a comprehensive plan for the lake, and when the town, city, or county that has included an in-depth field and a public review process, as these lands offer access to people who cannot afford lakeshore property. The DNR would like to see that there is: • Adequate access to public waters during the summer and winter for both motorized and non - motorized activities. These public corridors often afford recreational opportunities such as shore fishing, canoeing, swimming, picnicking, observation and scenic viewing area, ice fishing and/or snowmobiling access. • No harm to natural resources. These public corridors abutting or terminating at waters often provide an intact riparian shore land zone that affords the ecological functions necessary to sustain fish and wildlife, and protect water quality. Additional shore land development causes major impacts. • A review if there are historical and cultural resources present, which is common for lakeshore parcels. The DNR strongly encourages these resources be protected. Hope this helps, please let me know if you have additional questions. Nancy Nancy Stewart Water Recreation Consultant I Division of Parks and Trails Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 500 Lafayette Road St. Paul, MN 55155 Phone: 651-259-5616 Email: nancy.stewart@state.mn.us mndnr.gov DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 9113 9 From: Marie Darling <MDarling@ci.shorewood.mn.us> Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2020 1:34 PM To: Stewart, Nancy (DNR) <nancy.stewart@state.mn.us>; Vickery, Martha L (DNR) <martha.vickery@state.mn.us> Subject: Vacations of rights of way to Lake William and Lake Minnetonka in Shorewood This message may be from an external email source. Do not select links or open attachments unless verified. Report all suspicious emails to Minnesota IT Services Security Operations Center. We have 10 public access points to lakes William and Minnetonka in Shorewood called "Fire lanes". The fire lanes are primarily extensions of right-of-way to the lakes, although we have one in an outlot and one by easement. A few members of Commissions have posed the question about vacating these access -ways (at least the ones by right-of- way). The DNR has review rights over any such easements. What would be the likely DNR position should any such request be forwarded based on other similar requests the DNR has commented on in the past? I attached our zoning map for your reference. The lakes are labeled FL 1, FL 2, etc. X na vaI&Of Planning Director 952-960-7912 mdarling C@ci. shore wood. mn. us City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 NN Data Practices Notification: Pursuant to NN Data Practices Chapter 13 all government data including email communications is presumed to be public unless there is a specific state statute, federal law, or temporary classification that classifies it otherwise. ( 111, 01; SHOREWOOD www.d.shorewood.mn.us 6 Michael S. Rosenberg MD Sagit V. Rosenberg MD 4595 Enchanted Point Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 September 17, 2020 City of Shorewood Planning and Park Commissioners Greg Lerud, City Administrator Marie Darling, Planning Director Shorewood City Hall 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 RE: Fire lane 1 Dear Commissioners, Administrator, and Director: RECEIVED SEP 172020 CITY OF SHOREWOOD We are the property owners of 4595 Enchanted Point (hereafter, "4595") adjacent to Fire lane 1 in the City of Shorewood and would like to include comments regarding the uses allowed in that fire lane. Thank you for directing us to the packet on the City website in preparation for the Planning Commission meeting held on September 1, 2020 at 7:00 pm. In the packet, made first available on Friday, August 28, 2020, we reviewed the letter sent by the Commodore of the Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club Marina, John E. Grzybek, dated January 15, 2019. In Mr. Grzybek's letter, there are a number of misstatements of fact regarding the adjacent fire lane that we wish to clarify. First, we moved into the adjacent property over 17 years ago and have since been regularly cleaning and maintaining the area of the fire lane. This has involved cleaning pre-existing trash including an old wheelbarrow, dock pieces, an old hose, and cinderblocks. Since our ownership of 4595 in May 2003, we have also performed regular maintenance of the grounds such as watering with the pre-existing underground sprinklers, fall and spring clean-up, mowing the lawn and cleaning up storm debris. The landscaping boulders and pine trees in the fire lane existed prior to our purchase of this property. The "weeds" on the fire lane, which the Commodore is referring to, was a wall of natural beauty with yellow and lavender hollyhocks, sumac and wild grape vines that were unilaterally mowed down and killed with Round Up by the Yacht Club under the direction of the current Commodore over the last 2 or 3 years leaving thorns, thistles and poison ivy (Exhibit A and B). This was apparently for the purpose of exerting some self-serving claim that they have maintained that property for potential territorial gain when in actuality their actions have been to the detriment of the neighborhood and the general public. At our meeting with Marie Darling, Greg Lerud, and Katriona Filipovitich Molasky regarding the adjacent fire lane, on January 22, 2020, we showed photos of the natural greenery and flowers as well as the landscaping which was present in the fire lane prior to the purchase of our property in May 2003. Approximately 3 years ago, erosion of the shoreline and subsequent flooding extending from the fire lane into our property carried with it large amounts of debris and dead fish. We repaired the extensive damage to the area. This included replacing some of the destroyed sod in the fire lane that pre -dated the purchase of our property, added a small area of rip rap and sand to preserve the shoreline and prevent further erosion and flooding, and continued to mow the lawn in order to make the area more safe and accessible. We were further dismayed by the Commodore's letter noting "[we have] explored selling [our] home, using photographs of the improvements [we] made on City property, as what appears to be an incentive for potential purchasers." Neither we nor our professional real estate agent have ever misrepresented the boundaries of our property to potential buyers and there are appropriate disclosures regarding the fire lane. This calls into question the Commodore's integrity and the general veracity of his statements --especially when considering his prior disbarment from the State of Minnesota for numerous instances of unethical, dishonest and inappropriate behavior, including misappropriation of client funds and failure to follow court orders. It is our belief that the Yacht Club, which started off as a sailing club, has repeatedly tried to change our quiet residential neighborhood by expanding their commercial business. Over the years, they have challenged their conditional use permit, expanding it from "sailboats" to "boats" allowing the addition of several moored power boats transforming their sailing club to a marina. This altered the character of the area from a quiet residential neighborhood to a busy commercial entity. This impact on the adjacent neighbors was significant enough to pursue repeated legal action (see Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club v. City of Shorewood in MN Court of Appeals in July 2009). In his letter, the Commodore references a letter sent 2 years prior expressing their desire to "lease or purchase" what they called the "wasted property" of the fire lane as it would "add to the City's tax base". Now, they are offering to provide lockable storage racks for "personal watercraft" which further exemplifies the Yacht Club's ambition to manipulate this land for the expansion of their own commercial goals, contrary to current residential zoning. It is reasonable to assume that the use of the storage racks, and for that matter the fire lane land in general, will be primarily for the benefit of their own patrons. We wish to make the following points clear: 1. We would like our neighborhood to remain a quiet residential neighborhood as it is currently zoned. We respectfully request to continue the classification of Fire Lane 1 as Class 1 and NOT expand commercial use of the adjacent Yacht Club to include more motor boat noise, especially with the addition of personal watercraft. If the fire lane land adjacent to our property is abandoned by the City, is for lease or for sale, then we should have equal access to any transaction as we would be interested in acquiring the property as well. Finally, we are attaching copies of our email to the City and the City's response following our meeting regarding the adjacent fire lane, at the City Hall on January 22, 2020 demonstrating our cooperation with the City's requests (Exhibit C). At that meeting, we also offered to remove at our own expense 1 or 2 of the boulders that pre -date our purchase of 4595 in order to allow public access through the landscaped portion of the fire lane. The City instructed us to await further recommendation of the Planning Committee and City Council. We remain ready and willing to continue to cooperate with the City. Incidentally, contrary to our compliance, the Yacht Club continues to store a boat lift on the fire lane property (please see Exhibit D). We appreciate City of Shorewood support in preserving current Fire Lane 1 classification and appeal to the Yacht Club to also respect the residential nature of our neighborhood. Thank you for your attention in this matter. Sincerely, 1 Dr. Michael S. Rosenberg, MD, FSIR, FACR ,3a4L V3 Dr. Sagit V. Rosenberg, MD EXHIBIT A Natural wild flowers and vegetation in fire lane prior to Yacht Club "maintenance" EXHIBIT B After Yacht Club destroyed natural vegetation in fire lane FXHIRIT C Monday, August 31, 2020 at 20:34:14 Central Daylight Time Subject: RE: Follow up to our 1/22/20 meeting Date: Monday, January 27, 2020 at 8:08:53 AM Central Standard Time From: Greg Lerud To: Michael Rosenberg, Marie Darling, Katriona Molasky Attachments: image002.jpg Mr. and Mrs. Rosenberg, Thank you for your email. Your email arrived before I was able to complete a summary letter, and your email accurately summarizes our meeting. We will let you know as soon as we are able to schedule a site visit for the parks and planning commission, which we anticipate will be in April. Following that meeting we will have some direction about the future plans for the city -owned property. Regards, Greg Greg Lerud, City Administrator City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 p: 952-960-7905 � 4 I Rrcr�l r«� From: Michael Rosenberg<michaelsagit.rosenberg@comcast.net> Sent: Monday, January 27, 202012:45 AM To: Marie Darling <MDarling@ci.shorewood.mn.us>; Greg Lerud <GLerud@ci.shorewood.mn.us>; Katriona Molasky <KMolasky@ci.shorewood.mn.us> Subject: Follow up to our 1/22/20 meeting Dear Marie, Greg and Katriona: Thank you for meeting with us on Wednesday, January 22, 2020 regarding clarification of City of Shorewood requirements with respect to the fire lane bordering our property on 4595 Enchanted Point. As you requested, we will proceed with moving the underground sprinklers and the two boat lifts in the spring, once the weather permits. In addition, as we agreed and per your suggestion, we look forward to meeting with City of Shorewood Page 1 of 2 EXHIBIT C (Cont) representatives on site to discuss any further requested modifications to the grounds within the context of the City's future plans for that area. We kindly appreciate advanced notice of the anticipated date and time of the site visit so we can coordinate. Please send any future correspondence regarding this or other matters to our home address in Eagan listed below. Sincerely, Michael and Sagit Rosenberg 4187 Amberleaf Trail Eagan, MN 55123 Cell: 651-387-3566 Page 2 of 2 EXHIBIT C (Cont) in CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 Country Club Road o Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 952.960.7900 * www.ci.shorewood.mn.us January 23, 2020 Michael and Sagit Rosenberg 4595 Enchanted Point Shorewood, MN 55331 Mr. and Ms. Rosenberg, Thank you for taking the time to come to City Hall and meet with us regarding the fire lane next to your property at 4595 Enchanted Point. It was valuable to have everyone together to discuss the situation as it stands and next steps in the process. You will be required to relocate the boat lift and any personal items within the fire lane property to your personal property. This can be done any time between now and May 1, 2020. You will also be required to cap the sprinkler system at the property line. Currently the sprinkler system extends into the fire lane and the line must be terminated at the property line. This work must be completed by June 1, 2020. The City will be doing to visits to all of the fire lanes in April with the Park and Planning Commissions. These meetings will be public and you are welcome to attend. They will be visiting the fire lane next to your property and will discuss next steps in regards to the use and necessary landscaping. Next steps in regards to landscaping will be determined after this visit. These discussions may result in new orders to move other private improvements At the meeting it was also discussed that you are selling this property. You must disclose the improvement the property line to any new buyer. If there is anything in this letter that you feel does not represent your understanding of what was discussed at the meeting, please let us know so we can clarify to make sure we are all on the same page with this matter moving forward. Katriona Fiiipovltch Molasky Planning Technician AL .: µ.�j•3 ! t s � 3+ a n,aLil I � kt itf� r .�-•.�IF , Marie Darling From: Michael J Smerdon <Michael.Smerdon@hennepin.us> Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2020 3:23 PM To: Marie Darling Subject: Impact of vacating fire lanes on neighboring properties value Hi Marie, As we discussed earlier today, if the City were to vacate the fire lanes and deed them to a neighboring residential property, it may or may not impact that property's assessed value. For those properties on Lake Minnetonka it would increase their lake frontage and therefore increase the assessed value of the property. The impact would be different for every property depending on how much lake shore that property currently has. If is it a lot with a large amount of lakeshore it would have a smaller impact than if it was deeded to a property with a small amount of frontage. The properties on Lake William would be impacted much less, as we value those lots as building sites, and the amount of frontage on Lake William has a much smaller impact on the values of those properties. If you have any other questions let me know, Michael Smerdon, SAMA Principal Residential Appraiser Hennepin County Assessor's Office Cell : 612-267-4480 Office: 952-249-4641 "Value and Classify Property, Uniformly and Accurately" **Please note, The Hennepin County Assessor's Office public facing locations are currently closed. In support of the health and safety of our taxpayers and employees, we are working remotely. We will get back to you as quickly as possible, and thank you in advance for your patience as we navigate new ways to serve you. Disclaimer: If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please immediately notify the sender of the transmission error and then promptly delete this message from your computer system. CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 Country Club Road • Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 952-960-7900 • www.ci.shorewood.mmus • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us To: Parks Commission, Planning Commission and City Council From: Marie Darling, Planning Director Memo Date: September 1, 2020 Re: Fire Lanes Attachments: Section 1201.03 Subd. 19 Zoning Map with Fire Lane Correspondence Received s Identified Regarding Fire Lanes Now that staff and all the commissioners were able to walk each of the 10 fire lanes, the next step is to consider: • How well does each fire lane serve the public as lake access? • Are the uses that are currently allowed appropriate in each of the fire lanes? • Are there other uses that are currently not permitted that could be approved based on the characteristics of each fire lane? • Should improvements be completed to allow the site to serve as public lake access more effectively? Currently allowed Uses: The current allowed uses are divided into three groups, with eight of the fire lanes in the group that allows the most passive uses. The uses are summarized below. Class 1: Allows pedestrian access to the lake, fishing from the shore, launching canoes and other small boats not requiring a trailer, and cross country skiing. Class 2: Allows pedestrian access to the lake, launching canoes and other small boats not requiring a trailer, cross country skiing, snowmobile access to the lake, swimming and parking. Class 3: Allows pedestrian access to the lake, fishing from the shore, launching canoes and other small boats not requiring a trailer, cross country skiing and allows the installation of a dock subject to six specific conditions listed in the regulations (attached). Class Fire Lanes 1 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10 2 6 3 5 The adjacent Yacht Club has indicated that they would be willing to work with the City to provide lockable storage racks for personal watercraft to increase public access to the lake and would be willing to provide maintenance in the area. The boundary between the two parcels was not clearly defined on the original plat. Private improvements have been placed in the fire lane obstructing public access. Fire Lane 1 This fire lane provides not only public lake access, but also public access to maintain a public lift station and has one parking spot for maintenance vehicles. About 30 feet wide until 5325 Shady Island Road, then about 15 feet wide to the shoreline. Fire Lane 2 This fire lane provides the most commonly -used public access to the lake in both summer and winter Private improvements have been installed in the fire lane. 25 feet in width Fire Lane 3 NL ;ir 25 feet wide Fire Lane 4 Provides steep access point to the lake. 66 feet wide Fire Lane 5 This fire lane provides a widening of Cresent Beach, but the Shorewood side of the fire lane is mostly a ditch to Lake Minnetonka for drainage purposes. Shorewood side is 33 feet wide JF V Fire Lane 6 33 feet wide Fire Lane 7 40 feet wide Fire Lane 8 40 feet wide Fire Lane 9 Private improvements into the fire lane 33 feet wide Fire Lane 10 Section 1201.03 of the Shorewood Zoning Regulations Subd. 19. Fire lanes. a. Purpose. Recognizing that all fire lanes are to provide lake access to the public, this subdivision is established to identify, classify and regulate the use thereof based upon their historic use within the city. b. Use classifications. The use of fire lanes in Shorewood shall be restricted to one of the following classifications: (1) Class I may be used for pedestrian access to the lake, fishing from shore, launching canoes and other small boats not requiring a trailer and cross-country skiing; (2) Class II may be used for all of the activities as designated in Class I except fishing, as well as snowmobile access during the winter, parking and swimming; (3) Class III may be used only for pedestrian access to the lake, fishing, launching canoes and other small boats not requiring a trailer. In addition, a single dock may be installed subject to the following: (a) The person or group of persons installing the dock shall be Shorewood residents and apply for an annual building permit prior to installation of the dock; (b) The total length of the dock shall not exceed 25 feet; (c) The dock shall be installed by a professional installer and maintained in a safe and workmanlike manner; (d) The use of the dock shall be for the general public and shall not be limited to use by those who install it; (e) Docking of boats shall be limited to daytime hours only between sunrise and sunset; (f) The dock shall comply with all requirements of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District. C. Designation of fire lanes. The following fire lanes shall be identified on the Official Zoning Map and shall be classified as follows: (1) Class I: I -Enchanted Island, 2-Shady Island, 3-Grant Lorenze, 4- Third Street, 7-Ferncroft, 8-Ivy Lane, 9-Rustic Way South, I O-Rustic Way North; (2) Class II: 6-Crescent Beach; (3) Class III: 5-Eureka. d. General regulations. (1) Fire lanes shall be used only for the activities provided for in subdivision b above. No sporting activities shall be allowed which involve thrown objects such as catch, softball, baseball, frisbee, volleyball or football. (2) Fire lanes shall be subject to the rules and regulations contained in Shorewood Ordinance 140, as may be amended, (Chapter 902) pertaining to the use of city parks, including, but not limited to, use of intoxicating beverages. (3) Maintenance and improvements of fire lanes shall be the sole responsibility of the city. No one shall maintain or make improvements, except as modified herein, without the approval of the City Administrator/Clerk or his or her agent. (4) Except in Class II fire lanes, there shall be no parking of automobiles, boat trailers or snowmobiles on or adjacent to any of the fire lanes identified herein. (5) Except for snowmobiles in Class II fire lanes, motorized vehicles shall be prohibited on fire lanes. (6) Lots with side yards abutting fire lanes shall provide a total of 30 feet of side yard setback with no one side being less than ten feet. Marie Darling From: Jeff Wyatt <wyattjeffreya@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2019 6:28 PM To: Planning Subject: Fire lane access in Shorewood Please rezone the Grant Lorenz Road fire lane to officially allow snowmobile access to Lake Minnetonka. Crescent Beach access is not sufficient as sole access as there is a conflict between the City of Shorewood and the City of Tonka Bay ordinances. While snowmobiles are allowed to access Lake Minnetonka from Crescent Beach on the City of Shorewood side of the beach, they are prohibited from accessing the lake on the City of Tonka Bay side of the beach. This nuance could make it confusing and difficult for snowmobile operators to follow the law and requires duplicative enforcement efforts. The Grant Lorenz Road is a safe access for riders. Grant Lorenz Road is a long and straight road with two bright streetlights, one right before the fire lane. The access at Crescent Beach requires riders to go up and down several hills and around several corners on public roadway if they have to bypass Grant Lorenz Road. In particular, the corner at Grant Lorenz Road and Birch Bluff road is a blind corner and having more snowmobiles rounding this corner is a safety hazard. The Grant Lorenz Road fire lane is wide enough for riders as well. The fire lane at Grant Lorenz Road has traditionally been used as a snowmobile access for many years without incident and has created a reasonable expectation The homeowner adjacent to the Grant Lorenz Road fire access has been posting home-made signs on the fire lane saying that motorized vehicles are not allowed. However, all throughout the year, there are often vehicles parked in this fire lane related to either his or other construction projects occurring nearby. By trying to restrict some traffic from using the fire lane and simultaneously using the fire lane as a personal parking spot, this homeowner is trying to make the fire lane part of his personal property. This is not fair to the public who pay for the use of this fire lane as residents of the City of Shorewood and sets a dangerous precedent. While there are actually two other fire lanes between Grant Lorenz Road and Crescent Beach, one at the end of Eureka Road and one about six houses down from Grant Lorenz Road at what appears to be called "Third Street" on some maps, neither of these fire lanes is maintained and cannot be located easily from the road. Neither would be a reasonable option for snowmobile access. For all of these reasons, the fire lane at Grant Lorenz Road should be rezoned to officially allow snowmobile access during the winter. Respectfully submitted, Jeff Wyatt 5335 Eureka Rd Shorewood, MN Marie Darling From: Robert Milstein <robert@milstein.com> on behalf of connieandrob@milstein.com Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2019 5:41 PM To: Planning Subject: RE: Workshop on Fire Lanes January 15 Planning & Parks Commissions, We are unable to attend the workshop tonight, but learned of this discussion and how it relates to the fire lane at the lake end of Grant Lorenz Rd (nearest our house). Despite living in Shorewood forjust five years, we were well aware of this convenient public lake access. Further, we were aware that it was the primary access to the lake for snowmobilers in our area, and we were very surprised when we learned that snowmobile access through that fire lane is prohibited by the city. Because of this, we wanted to share a few short thoughts: - Safety First: Fire lanes should by nature never be blocked, which rules out any consideration of use for parking or storage at any time. - Maintenance Second: Any use of the fire lanes that would cause an unacceptable maintenance expense deserves careful review — we're talking about taxes here. - Reasonable Use Third: For ALL of the fire lanes, especially the one on Grant Lorenz, reasonable use should be strongly considered (bearing in mind the above two points). Clearly, reasonable use includes walking in/out, including portage. In addition, history has shown that reasonable use has apparently also always included snowmobile access. With regard to officially permitting snowmobile access, this is a situation where: - There are no signs about it (so it's no surprise no one knew it was prohibited) - No one we have discussed this with is aware of anyone ever having been confronted in the past (by neighbors nor the City) (so history has supported this use) - It's during a season when windows are closed (so noise from the snow mobiles wouldn't be an issue) - The ground is frozen (so maintenance costs for this use do not exist) - And it's public land It's hard to imagine why it would come up for discussion to start enforcing the rule, but given history and the notes above, we strongly support an update that allows snowmobile access to the lake through the fire lane at least on Grant Lorenz. Best, Robert & Connie Milstein January 15, 2019 Ms. Marie Darling City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN. 55331 Re: Fire lane access to lakes. Dear Marie, I am writing to express my concern regarding fire lane access to lakes. I am a resident of Shorewood and use the Class II fire lanes for snowmobile access to access the lake. Snowmobiling is currently allowed on city streets currently and our only access to the lake is the Class II fire lane. I am against altering the city code regarding use of the fire lanes for vehicle access. Please keep my updated on city staff recommendations and any proposed changes to Subd. 19. Fire lanes. Sincerely, 4�a* Martin Woody D fe 1,j),e)a4 , AIA-) ,5,533 i REG cVED JAN 15 2019 CITY OF SHOREWOOD Marie Darling From: Michael Blomquist <mike@mikeydidit.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2019 10:06 AM To: Planning Cc: Michael Blomquist Subject: Fire Lane At Grant Lorenz and Birch bluff I would like to ask that this fire lane be reclassified to a Class II allowing vehicles such as snowmobiles and 4- wheeler to access the lake in winter. I believe the fire lane is currently being misused by the homeowner who lives next to the fire lane. This is the same homeowner who posted signs on the fire lane last winter trying to block others from using the fire lane. Throughout the year, this homeowner uses the fire lane to park vehicles. I am attaching images of many different instances of this occurring. I am not interested in getting in a fight with neighbors, but this homeowner yelled at me last winter for trying to access the lake on a 4-wheeler, which is something that I and many others have always done. At the same time, he has no problem with others parking in the fire lane. The fire lane access to the lake is one of the reasons I moved to this area. I use the lake all year long, boating in summer and ice fishing in winter. I do not want to see this fire lane closed off from it's traditional use because of one resident. Thank you for your time and consideration of this issue. Thank you, Mike Blomquist NOV tMotorized Vehicles T PERMITTED ,w r IN F F H:a i TV00 A M Lo Google M� r Nit ,y . y`r CL FC The LIAN 1 S 2019 C best on Leak'a"'ng and boating C) o A'�nnetoaka. S��C� John E. Commodore, jJ Grzpbek 730 pper Ennetonka yacht Club Winslow Avenue Saint Paul ' Minnesota 55107 (651) 592-0945 (cell phone) Via E-Mail 15 Janua-ty Tuesday 2019 City o{Shorewood Planning and Park Comm Throughissio Greg Lerud hers Shorewood City Hall City Adm inistrator 5755 Country try CIub Road wood Minnesota Re: Fire Lanes as Upper Minneton abandoned Pro Yacht Club pew' Upper Minnetonka Dear Co Marina, 4580 Enchanted Yacht Club Commissioners: Comments; Introduction 1 am understand the Commodore mmOdore of the U Shorewood YOU are takin peer Minnetonka I am sub g commentsregardingYacht because of mitting this letter as tfire lane Club ("UMYC") if an out sub properties I or inu have any follow- wn conflict I am unable MYC s public commenwithin t. the City of person, up questions I will be more than hapear ppy before you fortunately, appY to respond However, with it I am grateful that you pond either in writing j recognize that the are evaluating {ire lane leasing the vacated acated fire lane MYC s Tequest about two perry and what the City my comments property Iocated Years a could do are related to at Our g° to explore ac our at Our may have quiring or j do not know tarred this process, the extent of the amount of fire lane property the City of Shorewood may have in its possession, but to evaluate what the City has in its inventory and what should become of that property as a matter of public policy is a wise decision. General Policy Suggestion; Next Best Use of Abandoned, Wasted City Property As a matter of general policy, I would suggest that once existing fire lane property is evaluated, and determined to be of no use to the City for positive public use and has essentially been abandoned by the City, it is "wasted" property and should be made available for its next best use, if any. The property could be leased or purchased. This would include use by private parties who could prevent any further "waste" to its value. It would also decrease the City's liability exposure related to the City's abandonment of that property. The fire lane property adjacent to our marina is a case in point. UMYC Experience With Fire Lane Property at its Marina The UMYC marina is located at 4580 Enchanted Point. At the southern most point of our property, is fire lane property that extends to the Upper Minnetonka Lake. See Exhibit A attached. Approximately two years ago, I approached the City of Shorewood to explore the possibility of acquiring that small and narrow piece of fire lane property located immediately south of our marina property. For all tends and purposes, it has been "wasted" by the City and abandoned. On the City fire lane property we inquired about, the UMYC has spent hundreds of dollars to clean that land because it had become wasted by the City. Neighbors (witnessed) had throw debris —leaves, tires, cut branches, a swing set, hose, concrete, and the like, that had accumulated for years. Because the overgrowth became so untenably to the UMYC and a potential hazard, I directed the cleanup at our expense. I was shocked at what we found. Countless volunteer hours were spent to clean up the abandoned, vacate property and now continue efforts to control the overgrowth. We continue to cut the weeds and gather dead -wood and debris, now only occasionally found, throughout our sailing and boating season, again, at our expense. Regardless, this property was long been forgotten by the City —abandoned, vacated, and wasted —and of no use to the City. Why is it of no use? Because this particular piece of fire lane property is narrow and can not be converted to any feasible public use. For instance, placing a public ramp for access to the lake is not practicable because there is too limited an area to park cars or trailers. Even if converted to a public park, it is limited to the amount of vehicles that could park. Moreover, to do a conversion of use would cause grave concerns about safety and security issues to the residential neighborhood and the marina. At the present time, the fire lane itself, although reaching to the lake, physically ends at the driveway of another private party's property located at 4595 Enchanted Lane. Although everything to the northeast and east of the lane is "fire lane property" and therefore City property, the owners of 4595 Enchanted Lane have significantly encroached on that City property. The owners have planted grass, created a sand beach, and have — without a permit —placed rip -rap on the shoreline. Five years ago, the UMYC stopped the owner from placing rip -rap all along the shoreline to the southern boundary of our marina property, and has abandoned that course of action. The owner had no permit of any kind. While I understand the owners do improvements on City property at their own risk, I find the treatment of the City to these property owners and our desire to acquire or lease the fire lane property places us at a distinct disadvantage. We've been working with City officials through proper channels while that owner has used the fire lane as his own. With that, the property owner has explored selling his home, using photographs of the improvements he made on City property, as what appears to be an incentive for potential purchasers. See Exhibit B attached. Policy; Lease or Purchase of Abandoned Fire Lane Property The City should consider that if the lands are of no public use because of their configuration and are abandoned and determines the vacated lands of no use, it should allow interested parties to acquire those lands or lease the property. It would help the City. With the UMYC for instance, we have taken it upon ourselves to service the land by keeping it from further becoming a hazard and dumping grounds others created. Hence, by our actions, City liability has been minimized. However, the UMYC is under no obligation to continue this generosity. If leased, an agreement could be crafted to ensure the lands are not wasted and kept in good order. If allowed to purchase, at a reasonable price, it would add to the City's tax base. Invitation to Visit UMYC Marina and Fire Lane Property If you have any questions regarding my statements, please contact me. Further, if you would like to visit our marina and physically see the fire lane property at issue, I would be happy to escort any City official through the site. Thank you for allowing me to offer this statement. I hope to attend anyfuture public hearing on this matter, if future hearings are scheduled. e I u 4 Lb . t •. �^ 4v a'W 4 V � t/3 a. tic � 7a � r.> a rn r x r O Z 25 tl F CJ CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS JOINT PLANNING AND PARK COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 2020 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CONVENE JOINT PLANNING AND PARK COMMISSION WORK SESSION MEETING Chair Maddy and Chair Mangold called the meeting to order at 7:07 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Planning Chair Maddy; Commissioners Gault (arrived at 7:20 p.m.) Gorham, Eggenberger, and Riedel; Park Commissioners Mangold, Hirner, Gallivan; Planning Director Darling; Councilmember Johnson and Councilmember Siakel; Communications Director Moore Absent: Park Commissioner Schmid APPROVAL OF AGENDA Riedel moved, Mangold seconded, approving the Joint Planning and Park Commission agenda, as presented. Roll Call Vote: Ayes — all. Motion passed 710 FIRE LANE DISCUSSION Planning Director Darling stated that both Commissions have been able to tour the fire lanes. She explained that now the task is to ask the following questions: How well does each fire lane serve the public as a lake access?; Are the uses that are currently allowed appropriate in each of the fire lanes?; Are there other uses that are currently not permitted that could be approved based on the characteristics of each fire lane?; Should improvements be completed to allow the site to serve as public lake access more effectively? She reviewed the currently allowed uses for Class 1, Class 2 and Class 3 fire lanes. She stated that she received 2 letters after the packet was sent out to the Commissioners, so she has sent those along separately. Planning Commissioner Eggenberger asked what would happen to a fire lane if the City decides to close it. Planning Director Darling stated that would depend on whether the City would decide to put up barriers, have zero maintenance so it would be natural vegetation, or if they would like to vacate the fire lanes. Planning Commissioner Eggenberger asked if a fire lane was vacated whether it simply becomes part of the adjoining property. Planning Director Darling explained that it would depend on how the City originally acquired the land. She stated that this may mean that the property may not be split evenly between the two adjacent properties. She stated that if the land is platted, that would be an entirely different situation and noted that she knows that there is one that is in an easement which has utilities in that location. The Commissions decided to discuss each fire lane individually. CITY OF SHOREW OOD PLANNING CONIMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 1, 2020 Page 2 of 23 Planning Director Darling reviewed the location of Fire Lane 1. Planning Commissioner Gorham stated that the City is technically responsible for maintaining the fire lanes and asked what the City currently does regarding maintenance. Planning Director Darling stated that there is not much that the City has been tasked to do and noted that they are not on mowing schedules. She explained that if a tree dies or falls and a property owner asks the City to remove it that is about the extent of what the City has done. Planning Commission Chair Maddy stated that this fire lane seems to be the most challenging one because the neighbor appears to have commandeered a good portion of this public property. He stated that he believes someone was even storing a boat lift on this property. Planning Director Darling stated that there was a boat lift on the fire lane which was part of the correspondence that was sent out earlier. She explained that the City had asked the property owner to remove their private, transportable private property and cut off their irrigation system at the property line, which they have done. She stated that now staff is waiting for more direction from the Planning and Park Commissions before they have them complete any additional work. Planning Commissioner Gault asked how all the rip rap was put in along the shoreland without the City being made aware of it or having any permit pulled. Planning Director Darling stated that the City has not gone any further with enforcement until staff knows the outcome of the discussions by the two Commissions. Planning Commissioner Riedel noted that he was at the property earlier today and the boat lift was still located on the fire lane. Planning Director Darling stated that she was unsure if there were any others in the area, but knows that the one that the City sent notice to has been removed. Chair Maddy stated that the City has received substantial correspondence from the Yacht Club about how they wish to take care of that property. He asked if the City had gotten any input from the home at 4595, which has commandeered a good chunk of public property. Planning Director Darling stated that they had sent in the letter that she e-mailed to the Commissioners earlier today and noted that they have complied with what the City has asked them to do. She stated that they are waiting to see if there will be more required of them based on the outcome of tonight's meeting. Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that his biggest issue with this fire lane is its remoteness. He stated that if the City will convert it into access and maintain it, he is concerned about how much it would actually be used. Planning Director Darling stated that the Yacht Club has indicated that there are quite a few people who are interested in launching kayaks through the fire lane. She stated that if the City would put in a parking space or two along the fire lane, it could be a more popular attraction for kayakers and canoes. She stated that the Yacht Club is already allowing some people from the public to launch from their property and that activity could be shifted to the fire lane. She stated that it appears that there is demand for small vessels. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING CONLMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 1, 2020 Page 3 of 23 Councilmember Siakel asked how Planning Director Darling knows that there is demand. Planning Director Darling stated that at this point, she can only pass along what she has been told by the Board of Directors at the Upper Lake Minnetonka Yacht Club. Planning Commissioner Gault stated that it appears that the Yacht Club is also willing to maintain the property. Scott Brown stated that he lives in the neighborhood near this fire lane. He stated that he is a former Commodore of the Yacht Club and is the only one who lives in the east side of the road. He stated that when he served as the Commodore about 20 years ago, the fire lane was abandoned swamp land. He stated that while he served as Commodore, they cleaned up a lot of the lake shore and pulled out materials, but this was not associated with the fire lane. He stated that if the Yacht Club is allowing people to launch across their property, it is in violation of the CUP and noted that there is no parking on this street. He stated he cannot imagine a concept that says that there is demand for lake access out in this area because they are just a remote, small street. He stated that he does not think storage for kayaks or canoes would be allowed in this location either. He stated he is also an avid cross-country skier and he cannot fathom somebody using a lake access to get onto the lake to cross country ski and doesn't understand why this was included as a use. Planning Director Darling explained that cross country skiing is a listed use for this classification of fire lane which is listed within the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Brown stated that he just doesn't feel that the end of this street is a good place to have a public access. Mike and Siggit Rosenberg, 4595 Enchanted Point, stated that they have not commandeered the property. He explained that they purchased it in 2003, and the grass, sod, irrigation system as well as the landscaping were all in the fire lane at the time when they purchased the property and was done prior to their ownership. He stated that the rip rap that was there was mostly existing, but noted that they did extend a small portion of it. He stated that they are small boulders that can be carried and were just there to help with the erosion and flooding which have helped. He stated that he feels that they have always respected that property as fire lane and are not trying to misrepresent anything and want to fully cooperate with the City. He explained that the lift that is currently on the property is not their lift and explained that he thinks it belongs to the Yacht Club. He agreed with the there is a boat lift in the fire lane, but reiterated that it is not their boat lift. Mr. Brown stated that the flooding in the area a few years ago was caused because the Yacht Club dredged the land and their contractor cut a swath to the lake and lowered the shoreline which meant the whole neighborhood flooded when the lake went up. He stated that he built a dam to stop the water and the City came out and he pointed out to the Mayor who also came out to tour the area that the Yacht Club was illegally storing their boat lifts on the fire lane property. He stated that he can see the boat lifts that the Yacht Club has collected just looking from his property to theirs. Planning Commission Chair Maddy stated that the City is not trying to point fingers at anybody for wrongdoing, but is trying to clean up this situation. Ms. Rosenberg stated that she also agreed with Mr. Brown that this is a quiet residential neighborhood and they would not want to see this area turned into a storage area for personal CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 1, 2020 Page 4 of 23 watercraft, such as wave runners or jet skis. She stated that this would totally change the residential neighborhood and expand the commercial use of that land. She stated that it would change something that is called Enchanted Island into something that is not so enchanted. Planning Commission Chair Maddy noted that the ordinance would not allow for motorized vehicles so it would just be kayaks and canoes. Planning Director Darling agreed and clarified that there may be things like a kayak or paddleboard, but nothing like a jet ski. Mr. Brown stated that there is also zero parking in the area. He noted that they cannot park on the street because the streets are so narrow. Mr. Rosenberg agreed that there is absolutely no place to park. He stated that due to COVID-19 they have actually used the property more than they have in several years. He noted that the property is currently for sale, but they may decide to keep it and move out there permanently. Planning Commissioner Gault stated that he would like to know from the current Commodore whether the people that are launching canoes and kayaks are residents that do not have direct lake access from the west side of the island. He stated that he agrees that he cannot imagine people are driving out there to do that. Mr. Brown stated that the CUP states that no one is to be there unless they are a member or accompanied by a member. He stated that this is a major point of contention because it is violated literally every day_ Planning Commissioner Gault stated that he would like to know if the people that are launching from the Yacht Club are the same ones that would launch from the fire lane if it is all cleaned up and made accessible. Mr. Brown stated that he thinks it is fictitious because if someone is using the Yacht Club to launch a kayak it is illegal and shouldn't be happening. He stated that he does not think there are actually people launching their kayaks from the Yacht Club. Councilmember Siakel asked if the neighbors have any knowledge of anyone using the fire lane for launching any canoes or kayaks. She asked if this was a moot point because it has not been used that way. Mr. Rosenberg stated that since 2003 when they purchased the property, no one has come down to use the fire lane. Planning Commissioner Eggenberger asked where people would park if they were launching the watercraft from either the fire lane or the Yacht Club. Park Commission Chair Mangold stated that if this was a public use and it is being discussed in the same context at parks, they would think about what they put in the park and whether or not the City has the capacity for parking and traffic flow for that use. He stated that if there is not enough traffic flow, they are limited to how many ball fields or playgrounds they have. He stated that if there isn't parking, it is not able to be public access. He stated that he does not think there is a way to create parking in this location that would be a viable option. Councilmember Siakel stated that she thinks that is a commonality to all of the fire lanes. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 1, 2020 Page 5 of 23 Planning Commission Chair Maddy stated that this is one of the City's larger fire lanes. Planning Commissioner Gault stated that he thinks of it as an access factor where people who live within close proximity to the fire lane could use it on a regular basis. Mr. Brown stated that he is familiar with using fire lanes because he races ice boats and they use the fire lanes on the lower lake side, but the difference between that fire lane and this fire lane is the other one is a black topped, curbed road and this is technically a dirt road with no parking allowed. Park Commissioner Hirner asked whether it would be an option for the City to work with the Yacht Club to change their permit and allow the launching of personal watercrafts and if so, whether the City needs to retain the fire lane. Planning Director Darling explained that the Yacht Club is private property and not public property. She stated that just because one membership board may allow public access, it does not mean any future boards would also allow that use. She stated that if the City is interested in adding use such as a storage rack for canoes in the area, then she thinks the City could look at how to add parking in the area. She stated that there may be some good ground suitable for this purpose. Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that he doesn't understand why people would use this fire lane. He stated that he doesn't want to put the onus on the City or the residents to have to maintain them. He stated that to him, the question is, if the City were to no longer designate them as fire lanes, what would be done with them. He reiterated that he does not think this is a location that people will use. Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that he agreed with Park Commissioner Gallivan that the City should look at the option of closing fire lane #1. Mr. Rosenberg stated that they would be interested in talking to the City if there is any possibility of a lease or purchase of that property. Park Commission Chair Mangold suggested that the discussion move on to the other fire lanes in the City because he doesn't want them all to be lumped in together. Planning Commissioner Riedel stated that he feels fire lane #1 is different than the other fire lanes because there is potential here for some development, but he is going to echo what the other Commissioners have said that he doubts that the public will use this location. He stated that he drove out there earlier today and it took him 45 minutes to get there. He stated that he agrees that there is the potential for parking and another use, but feels it would be very minimally used by the public. Planning Commission Chair Maddy stated that there is enough room for a few parking spots and a place to store a few kayaks, but asked if it was the consensus that there would not be any demand for this and would ultimately be a waste of the City's resources. Planning Commissioner Gorham stated that part of his concern is the perception and making too many assumptions on how it is being used now versus how it may be used in the future. He stated that he has concerns about the perception of turning over public property for private use to wealthier shoreland owners while restricting lake access to people who are more inland. He CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 1, 2020 Page 6 of 23 stated that he would rather keep most of the fire lanes as they are rather than turning some of the property over because lake access is pretty precious. Planning Commission Chair Maddy stated that he agrees and would rather the City send the maintenance crew there a few times a month to keep it clean than consider conveying it to different property owners and disallowing the public use of the space. Planning Commissioner Gorham stated that he doesn't want people to look back and say that in 2020, people weren't using it, so we gave the people next door the right to it. He stated that he doesn't think the City is going bankrupt by maintaining it. Park Commissioner Hirner stated that his concerns are for the property owners on the island that do not have lake access and if this goes away, where can they go to get access to the lake. Mr. Brown stated that there is the Shady Island bridge area that has about five times better access to the water than this fire lane. He stated that to his knowledge, the fire lane has not been used in the 25 years he has lived in his home. He stated that this would not be "taking anything away" from people because it is not walkable. Planning Commissioner Riedel stated that he walked out there today and feels it is walkable. Mr. Brown noted that it is walkable right now because the Yacht Club went out with chainsaws last winter and cut down trees. He reiterated that he has never seen someone walk through that property to the water. Planning Commissioner Gault stated that when he was out touring this fire lane, there was a family that walked up behind him that had been fishing. He stated that he feels it is at least getting limited use. Mr. Brown expressed his surprise because he has not seen anyone walking on this fire lane. Mr. Rosenberg stated that they had recently gone fishing, so it may have been them. He concurred with Mr. Brown that they have also never seen anybody come down the fire lane or ask about going through there. Planning Commissioner Gault asked whether there would be better lake access for the community from the J.E. Memorial Park. Planning Director Darling stated that she doesn't have information on that because it is not in the City of Shorewood. Councilmember Siakel stated that she would like to caution the group regarding their tone in talking about wealthy lake owners and turning this into an elitist conversation. She stated that many of people along the fire lanes have lived in their homes for a long time and do not have wads of cash falling out of their pockets. She stated that the discussion at tonight's meeting should be on the current use of the fire lanes and should not just be about expanding the use of them. She noted that many of the fire lanes are inaccessible and have not been maintained by the City, nor is there a budget for the City to maintain them. She stated that she thinks the City should be talking about the current use and whether it is reasonable to maintain it. She stated that based on these questions the group should consider abandoning the fire lane or changing the classifications. She stated that it should not just be about expanding the use and should look at the entirety and also look at the purpose of the fire lanes in the first place, which was to fight CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 1, 2020 Page 7 of 23 fires. She stated that the City has not used a fire lane in about 100 years for this purpose. She stated that the fire lanes were not designed to create access for people to use the lake. Mr. Brown stated that his home was one of 3 properties affected when Michael Catain moved a dry hydrant and built his home. He stated that when they asked the City about it, they were told they didn't have to worry because the City had abandoned the dry hydrants, because they use the fire lanes. He stated that he is amazed to hear that the City does not use the fire lanes. He reiterated that this fire lane does not get used and he would describe it as abandoned property. Planning Director Darling stated that in 1985 and 1986, the fire lanes were studied exhaustively and at that time it was determined that there was no practical use of them for fire fighting purposes and the only use for them was for public lake access. Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that he feels the City needs to take responsibility for the fire lanes that will be retained. He stated that he feels that there needs to be certainty about whether they are going to be access points or not and then the City needs to take responsibility with regard to maintenance. Planning Commission Chair Maddy suggested moving the discussion along to the other fire lanes. He asked if there was anyone else from the public that would like to specifically comment on fire lane #1 before the discussion moves on. There being no public comment, the group moved onto fire lane #2. Planning Director Darling gave an overview of the location of fire lane #2. She noted that there is a lift station near the shoreline and one parking space. Planning Commissioner Riedel stated that it appeared as though there was irrigation piping from the adjacent lot running across the fire lane as well as wire put in place to deter geese across the fire lane. Planning Director Darling noted that she had seen similar geese barriers at other fire lanes throughout the City. Planning Commissioner Riedel stated that he feels this deters the use for public access because it is an obstruction. Planning Commission Chair Maddy stated that he feels this kind of thing can be expected because the City has not been maintaining them. He stated that this is a beautiful piece of the lake and asked if there were residents that did not have lake access that used this fire lane. Park Commissioner Hirner stated that he spoke with a resident who lives up the hill and the feedback he gave was that the status quo works for everyone that is there. Planning Commission Chair Maddy stated that it was awkward when he went to tour because he had to park in the middle of the island and walk down because the road is so narrow. Planning Commissioner Gault stated that he believes the City needs to retain public access in order to get to the lift station. Park Commissioner Chair Mangold stated that this fire lane provides a simpler picture of what is going on because it is not a piece of land that can be used in any other way than its current use. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 1, 2020 Page 8 of 23 Planning Commission Chair Maddy asked if the City could install a sign that explains what is allowed, such as non -motorized vehicles. Planning Commissioner Eggenberger asked if it should be re-classified as a service road. Planning Commission Chair Maddy asked if anyone from the public would like to speak specifically regarding fire lane #2. There being no comments, he suggested moving on to fire lane #3 which was the fire lane that the City received the most correspondence about. Planning Commissioner Gault stated that he stopped by this fire lane today. He stated that in looking at where the boundary stake was located, it appeared as though the stakes had been pulled by the neighbor to the west. He stated that there appears to be significant encroachment. He stated that this fire lane gets a lot of use and he has gotten feedback from numerous residents that they do not want to see this use changed. Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that technically, this fire lane is a Class 1, but what they have heard from many residents is that it is used as a Class 2. He stated that he thinks the discussion should be on whether it should be changed to a Class 2 and the City needs to be able to step in and create certainty for the residents. He stated that currently there appears to be some conflicts about the use and it has essentially been left up to residents to enforce it. Planning Commission Chair Maddy stated that our law says that you cannot have motorized vehicles, but it sounds like that has been used. He noted that the City did put up barriers last year and noted that the property owner at 26260 bought it after being told that there were no motorized vehicles allowed on the fire lane. He stated that the City had not enforced this until last year and now there are a lot of neighbors inland who want to use it for their snow machines. Park Commission Chair Mangold noted that the parking at this fire lane is drastically different than the parking situation on the island. Councilmember Siakel stated that there is parking available but this is a dangerous corner. Park Commission Chair Mangold stated that he understood that and wasn't implying that they should park on the corner, but it is significantly closer to walk to than there is on the island. Planning Commissioner Gault stated that the people he was speaking with earlier today live on Eureka and use the fire lane a lot to walk down to the lake. He reiterated that the neighbors he spoke with support the continued use of the fire lane and allowing snowmobile and ATV access, with some limitation on hours. Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that he feels there clearly needs to be better signage around this one and there should also be some clarity on the hours of use. He stated that he believes there should be access somewhere for people to use snowmobiles to get on the lake, but he hesitates because if a property owner bought this with the understanding that it was zoned as one thing and then the rules change, that gives him concern. Jillian Blomquist, 5425 Birch Bluff Road, stated that one thing she wanted to bring up, even in relation to the first two fire lanes, is the presumption that people are driving from far away places or other neighborhoods and parking their cars to use the fire lane access. She stated that she believes that is a misnomer or a misunderstanding of the use because the people in the neighborhood are walking from their houses miles in order to use the lake access in both the summer and winter months. She stated that they have lived in this home for 7 years and there CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 1, 2020 Page 9 of 23 were snowmobiles going up and down Grant Lorenz all winter long up until this last winter. She stated that it is really not people coming from other places and parking, so the idea that there needs to be parking for the fire lanes to be useful is a misunderstanding. She stated that this access has always been used for snowmobiles, but she understands the adjacent homeowner bought this with a different understanding. She stated that she has spoken with neighbors who have lived on Oak Ridge Circle for thirty years and they say there have been snowmobiles going down that fire lane for the whole thirty years. She stated that she agrees that signage limiting the operation hours or even limiting it to weekends would be a good compromise. Sarah Fisher -Johnson, 26165 Birch Bluff Road, stated that she lives on the south side of Birch Bluff and she was told when she purchased her house and researched the Class 1 and Class 2 designations. She stated that the barriers that were installed last year limited her being able to pull her niece in a sled and even her walking her dog with her snowshoes. She agrees that the usage needs some clarity and noted that there are some neighbors that do not have a fire hydrant near so it is terrifying to her to not actually have access to the lake. Planning Commissioner Chair Maddy stated that he wanted to be clear that the fire lanes are never used to fight fires. Planning Commissioner Gault noted that when he was out in this area speaking with residents they were standing under a pole, and it appears that the property owner at 26310 has installed permanent fixtures within the fire lane right-of-way. He stated that it includes video surveillance cameras and permanent snow fencing. He stated that when he saw the survey marker last Saturday, he thought he was looking at a 10 foot fire lane and then he received the most recent paperwork, and saw this was a 25 foot fire lane, which was why he went back again this evening to take another look. He stated that the survey stakes have been pulled he believes to obfuscate the nature of the fire lane. He stated that he would like to have it resurveyed and know whether or not the City needs to be talking to the resident about removing their permanent fixtures and landscaping. Mark Bongard, 26260 Birch Bluff Road, stated that he had removed the stakes, but the hard stakes are still in the ground. He stated that there were some storms and winds and a few of them fell down, so he just pulled the remaining that were standing. He stated that the marker stakes are still in the ground with pink ribbons on them, so the boundary can still be identified. He stated that he wasn't trying to cause harm. Planning Commissioner Gault stated that they were not there at 6:30 p.m. this evening. He noted that he appreciated that Mr_ Bongard has been maintaining the fire lane and mowing it. Mr. Bongard stated that their biggest issue with this situation is that would like the rules that they were told when they purchased the home to be in play. He stated that the use of the fire lane for pedestrian use, kayaks, canoes, paddleboards, and people fishing is fine. He stated that the only issue they have is the winter time usage with motorized vehicles. He stated that he doesn't agree with the people that are saying that his is the way it has always been done because that begs the question whether they are okay with breaking the law for 30 years. He stated that just because it has been done doesn't mean it is okay. He stated that the fire lane is wide enough and flat enough that people been driving through with fish houses and noted that this activity happens at all hours of the night. He reiterated that they purchased the home with the understanding that there would be pedestrian use along this fire lane. He stated that all of their bedrooms are on the side of the home near the fire lane and the snowmobiles are not quiet especially when they come through in large groups. He stated that if there was a way to control it, perhaps a 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. rule or daylight hours rule or something similar, he doesn't think he would be opposed to it as long as it CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 1, 2020 Page 10 of 23 is enforceable. He stated that last year when the barriers came up, it cut down on the snowmobile traffic but pedestrian traffic just cut around them and trespassed on his property in order to get back on the fire lane. He reiterated that he would prefer it remain pedestrian only, but would ask that regardless of what the City decides that it is something that is actually enforceable. Park Commission Chair Mangold stated that he feels there is no question that this fire lane is getting used by the public. Dave Garske, stated that he lives about a mile away from this fire lane on Smithtown near Freeman Park. He stated that he has lived in the area for about two years and runs quite a bit in this area and never realized that this was a public access point to the lake. He stated that he doesn't think there is any signage that indicates this is public access. He stated that one day he walked down it out of curiosity, but turned around because he felt like he was encroaching on someone's property. He stated that he just wanted to bring up the point that he thinks a lot of people don't know that the fire lanes can be used as public access to the lake. Planning Commissioner Gault noted that none of the fire lanes throughout the City have been marked to indicate what they are. Ms. Blomquist stated that she agrees that all of fire lanes should be marked unless they are going to be abandoned. She stated that this would address the enforcement issue, because she doesn't think people in the neighborhood would willingly break the law and feels if there was a sign there that makes it clear what is and isn't allowed, she thinks most people would follow the rules. Gretchen Thompson, 26295 Oak Ridge Circle, stated that she has lived in the neighborhood for about 14 years and when she first moved in there were remnants of that fire lane having been partially paved which has eroded over the years. She explained that over the years it sort of filled in and got narrower, but the whole time she has lived here this has been used for public access for snowmobiles and ATVs. She stated that she understands the noise concerns because she gets that at her home also, but likes to see everyone be able to have public enjoyment of the lake. She stated that she is in favor of clearer signage and understanding what the rules and hours. Planning Commissioner Gault asked if there was a common law principal at play here because the snowmobile access has allowed without dispute for so many years. He stated that the City of Shorewood has no public access to the largest recreation lake in the Twin Cities, which he feels is disgraceful and he feels it is incumbent on the City to provide full recreational access to Lake Minnetonka whenever and wherever it can. Councilmember Siakel noted that she does not believe it was the City that ever paved that fire lane, but rather one of the adjoining properties. She stated that before Mr. Bongard built his home, that home was only occupied during the summer so the City didn't hear a lot of complaints. Planning Commissioner Gault asked Mr. Bongard if he had known that access was used for snowmobile access whether he would have purchased the property. Mr. Bongard stated that they would not have purchased the property and they most certainly would not have designed their new home with the bedrooms located along the fire lane. Planning Commissioner Gault asked how Mr. Bongard had checked the use of the fire lane prior to purchasing the property. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 1, 2020 Page 11 of 23 Mr. Bongard explained that they were told by their realtor that this was a fire lane, so they spoke to the seller's realtor and the owner about the use of the fire lane. He stated that they told them that it was very quiet and nobody every used it and it hadn't been a problem, but suggested they check with the City. He stated that he physically went to the City and went to the front desk and spoke with two gentleman from the City who told him it was a pedestrian only fire lane and that if there were abuses or transgressions to let the City know and they would promptly deal with it. Jennifer Labadie, 5510 Howards Point Road, noted that she is a member of the City Council and she had received over 12 phone calls last year when the barriers were put in place at this fire lane. She stated that Mr. Bongard was not the only resident that has been complaining about the noise of the snowmobiles. She stated this issue is not being looked at just because of Mr. Bongard and is because of the wording in the ordinance. She stated that she received calls both for and against blocking the fire lane. Michael Blomquist, asked if residents at 26310 or 26245 had complained about noise. Planning Commissioner Chair Maddy stated that he would like to keep conversations more general and noted that Councilmember Labadie mentioned that she had received numerous complaints about the noise. Councilmember Labadie stated that the residents at 26310 and 26245 did not contact her with a noise complaint. She reiterated that she had received comments that were both pro and con of putting up barriers on the fire lane which was the point she was trying to make. Ms. Blomquist stated that she would like to be clear that cutting off the snowmobile access to this fire lane will not stop the snowmobile noise from happening because they will still come through the neighborhood and up their road. Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that he thinks there is a difference between snowmobiles riding up and down the road and congregating in the fire lane. Mr. Bongard stated that most people now know that the fire lane is not designed for motorized vehicles, but once it is opened the activity level is bound to increase as word gets out and noted that there will be a cumulative effect for him when that happens. Councilmember Siakel asked if snowmobiles and ATVs are allowed on City streets. Planning Director Darling stated that she does not have the City code in front of her, but believes there is a significant limitation on the use of public streets for snowmobiles. Planning Commission Chair Maddy stated that if he recalls correctly that it is allowed if you are on your way to an access point and is also allowed if there is a huge blizzard and cars cannot traverse the roadways. Park Commissioner Hirner stated that in the summer months, the City has "no wake" zones and asked about the possibility of slow speed zone until you are a certain distance off the shore to help with some of the noise issues. Planning Commission Chair Maddy stated that he does not think the City has any authority once people are on the lake. He stated that the City can regulate on the fire lane, but once they are on the lake it is the responsibility of Lake Minnetonka Conservation District. He asked if the Commissions would like to move on and talk about the other fire lanes. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 1, 2020 Page 12 of 23 Planning Commissioner Riedel noted that he has the City code in front of him and read aloud the portion of City code that pertains to snowmobiles. Planning Commissioner Gorham stated that his biggest issue with this fire lane is how the City would handle enforcement if it were restricted by times or days. Planning Director Darling stated that it would be enforced by the police, similar to a situation where people are in City parks after hours. She stated that it has been tricky enforcing snowmobile use of the fire lanes because the police to have witness someone using the fire lane which means they would almost have to park near them in order to watch. Planning Commissioner Gorham asked whether it could involve opening or closing a gate of some kind. Planning Director Darling stated that the only place the City has gated access is the west side of Christmas Lake at the boat launch. Park Commission Chair Mangold that this gate has had a whole lot of problems and complications. He stated that he would not say the City cannot explore a gate, but it does open up a whole other world of how it is used and what it is used for. Planning Commissioner Gault stated that it may also create the problem that Mr. Bongard was sharing of people going around the barriers and trespassing on his property to get onto the fire lane. The Commissions decided to move on to discuss fire lane #4. Planning Director Darling noted the location of fire lane #4. Park Commissioner Gallivan asked if the City was aware of anyone using this fire lane because it feels as though you are walking through two people's yards. Planning Commission Chair Maddy stated that he felt the same and it was very uncomfortable to walk this fire lane because it is basically private property at this point. Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that it is not a good launch area, so he doesn't think anybody would go through there. Planning Commission Chair stated that he that feels this is the least accessible fire lane of the ones discussed thus far. Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that he doesn't see any reason for this fire lane to exist. Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that he agreed that this fire lane shouldn't exist. Jaz Boysen, 26100 Birch Bluff Road, stated that they have lived here about 5 years and does not recall anybody using this fire lane while he has lived there. Kathy Bongard stated that this fire lane does look like you are walking between two people's yard and feels pretty invasive, but it is basically the same elevation to the lake as fire lane #3. She stated that the reason people don't use fire lane #4 is that people have no idea that it exists. She CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 1, 2020 Page 13 of 23 explained that fire lane #3 has had its path well worn, so people know it is there and is used like a road and theirs is used like a yard. Planning Commissioner Gorham stated that is an interesting point because with fire lane #4 you don't feel like you can enter it but that is partially the City's fault for not keeping it maintained. He stated that perhaps that may be a reason to keep this fire lane, maintain it and try to alleviate some of the traffic down Grant Lorenz. Ms. Bongard stated that she doesn't want to push their traffic off onto someone's property, but if the City is serious about creating public access to the lake, she feels they will have to purchase a home on the lake and turn it into public access. She stated that she feels this is the only way to provide suitable public access to the lake. She stated that the City could sell of the remaining fire lanes and purchase the home to provide public access. She reiterated that only difference between fire lane #3 and fire lane #4 is that fire lane #3 has turned into a well-worn path to the lake. Park Commission Chair Mangold asked about lake access and whether it was included in the long-term Comprehensive Plan to provide public access to the lake. Planning Director Darling stated that there has been discussion, but is not sure that it made it as far as the policy stage. She noted that when the City conducted a survey a few years ago, one of the most common responses was that people wanted more lake access. Park Commission Chair Mangold stated that from a Parks Commission standpoint, they use the Comprehensive Plan as a guiding tool as to where the City is investing long-term. He asked if public access is something that the City should be setting money aside for sometime in the future. He noted that the Park Commission's general attitude right now is that it is not looking for more park land and are simply trying to focus on improving the existing facilities. He stated that if the goal is to add public access in the future, that would be going against their current strategy. He stated that fire lane #4 is similar to fire lanes #1 and #2 in its current use, but demand in the neighborhood with people who may use it, is similar to fire lane #3. Planning Commissioner Gault stated there has been lake front property that has come available for reasonable prices and the City did not jump on the opportunity. Planning Commissioner Gorham stated that this fire lane is already 25 feet wide and will be a nice site if it is cleared, but doesn't believe it would constitute a new park. Park Commission Chair Mangold stated that he agreed, but if, at a concept level, that is something that both Commissions would like to see in the City, he thinks it is something that should be built towards and could be part of the fire lane discussion. He stated that he wants to make sure that the Commissions are not getting caught up in discussions about what the fire lane is versus what the long-term goal is for the City. Planning Commissioner Gault stated that the responses on the survey to have lake access, so the idea of abandoning lake access rather than improving it and letting people know that it is there flies into the face of the survey responses. Planning Commissioner Riedel stated that in looking at the Comprehensive Plan, there is actually language that does suggest that the City should seek to expand its Lakeshore access. He read aloud a portion of the Comprehensive Plan regarding lake access. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 1, 2020 Page 14 of 23 Park Commission Chair Mangold stated that he takes this language as a strong argument to keep the fire lanes as what they are from a long-term strategy so the City does not lose ground. Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that he would like know what it would cost to maintain the fire lanes in a way that is adequate versus whether the City needs to look at investing in a property that could become essentially a park with lake access. He stated that he doesn't know the answer, but feels it should be examined. Planning Director Darling stated that it would depend on the level of maintenance that the Commissions would direct the City to undertake. Councilmember Siakel stated that the discussion around the Comprehensive Plan should focus on the lake area and not just Shorewood, related to access to the lake. She stated that the City is mostly residential and has always been that way, but it looks to the greater lake area for access at multiple points throughout the lake. She stated that in her time with the Council, which has been over 10 years, she has never had a discussion about creating more access for people. She stated that the discussion has been about the area, having access, and protecting Lake Minnetonka as an asset to the community that expands beyond just Shorewood. Planning Commission Chair Maddy suggested that the discussion move onto fire lane #5. Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that fire lane #5 is like fire lane #4 except there is a very steep slope to the water, so the lake access in this location is not good. Park Commissioner Gallivan asked if the City had a liability issue with the steep slope if the City chose to do more with the fire lane. Planning Director Darling stated that there would be no more liability than there is with any other park or playground in the City. Planning Commissioner Gault noted that this lot is a saleable lot on the lake with 66 feet of frontage. Planning Director Darling stated that this is dedicated right-of-way, so the City would not be able to sell this property, but could only vacate it. She stated that most of the fire lanes are in this same situation and could not be sold, but could only be vacated. Planning Commissioner Riedel stated that this fire lane feels completely different than the others given its width. He stated that in principal there could be a small trail and a bench and this could be a very small park with lake access. Councilmember Siakel asked why the Commissions would consider that and not consider the fire lane down the street. She stated that both fire lanes run between two adjacent properties and noted that it would cost a fortune to put in stairs or do anything to update at this parcel. Planning Commissioner Riedel stated that he agreed and only mentioned it because this fire lane is so much wider than the others. Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that this parcel has not been maintained and agreed with Councilmember Siakel that this is right between two homeowners and doesn't know how much would be gained by adding a small park in this location. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 1, 2020 Page 15 of 23 Planning Commissioner Riedel stated that he agreed but noted that there doesn't seem to be much incentive to vacate this fire lane. He stated while it is wide enough to do something with, it is not wide enough to create a City park and agrees that the steepness of the slope near the lake would be a challenge. He suggested that the discussion just move on. Park Commissioner Mangold stated that he is unofficially grouping the fire lanes into their potential use and actual use and feels this fire lane feels much more like those that are on the island. Jim Russell, 26080 Birch Bluff Road, asked to comment on fire lane #4. He stated that he was 19 years old when his dad bought this property in 1950, so he claims seniority in the area. He stated that he doesn't see people using the fire lane and believes the neighbors know of its existence. He stated that for public use, there is no parking on Birch Bluff Road and the access to the water in this location is fairly abrupt. He stated that if it were vacated, he does not think it would inconvenience people too much because its use is very occasional. Councilmember Siakel noted that for fire lane #5, Mary Kay Pilley had submitted a document to City Administrator Lerud and Planning Director Darling about Planning Commission meetings from 1972 that reviewed some of the fire lanes. She noted that they had they had actually made a recommendation at that time to vacate fire lane #5. She stated that many of the things the Commissions are discussing have been talked about, but not acted on. Paul King, 25620 Birch Bluff Road, stated that their family has been Shorewood residents for 75 years and as Mary Kay Pilley showed, the City has been talking about this since 1972. He stated that they would be happy to finally have a resolution to this issue. Planning Commission Chair Maddy stated that now he is curious to know if the Commissions are just doing the same thing that they did in 1972. Mr. King stated that it feels like it and there has just been a constant conversation about it and time spent analyzing it and then nothing is done. Planning Commission Chair Maddy asked Planning Director Darling if she had records of what had happened in the past. Planning Director Darling stated that she does and noted that in 1972 the request to vacate the fire lane was denied by the City Council and in 1985 and 1986, there was some talk about getting rid of them, but instead they were kept. She stated that the uses that were permitted were placed into the ordinance, but that the fire lanes would have only minimal maintenance, if any. She stated that the fire lanes have kind of been left to their own devices since that time. Planning Commission Chair Maddy suggested moving onto fire lane #6. Mike Melnychuk, 25360 Birch Bluff Road, stated that he had purchased this property in May of 2019. He stated that as a former fire fighter he would agree that fire lane #6 is not usable for fighting fires. He stated that his driveway cuts across the fire lane ditch, so travel in the ditch would be virtually impossible by pedestrians or cross country skiers. He stated that he feels there is plenty of year-round access through Crescent Beach. He stated that he also does not think fire lane #6 is usable for public access to the lake. He noted that he feels the enjoyment of his own property has been diminished because of the unmaintained status of the fire lane property. He stated that he feels it would be very expensive for the City to maintain this fire lane and noted that if the City chose to abandon it, he would be more than happy to clean up the property and maintain it. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 1, 2020 Page 16 of 23 Planning Commissioner Gault stated that he doesn't think abandoning the whole fire lane would be possible because the north portion is connected to Crescent Beach and the parking area. Planning Commission Chair Maddy asked if any of the beach parking area was located on Shorewood property. Planning Director Darling stated that it is pretty close to the jurisdictional boundary and there could be some part that goes over and noted that the City does need to maintain control of the drainage ditch. Park Commission Chair Mangold stated that from a Park Commission perspective, Crescent Beach used to be a cooperative project with Tonka Bay and Tonka Bay took over full care and maintenance a few years ago. Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that he knows there were some comments from residents and asked if the City knows if, legally, motorized vehicles are allowed on Crescent Beach. Planning Director Darling stated that motorized vehicles are allowed in the parking area, but Tonka Bay does not allow snowmobile access on their side of the fire lane. Planning Commission Chair Maddy stated that the City does allow snowmobile access on its side of the fire lane. Planning Commissioner Gault stated that Mr. Melnychuk had mentioned an ice road which implies that it is open to all motorized traffic. Planning Commission Chair Maddy stated that his understanding is that Tonka Bay does their best to restrict vehicle access at this point. Mr. Melnychuk stated that he has spent 2 winters here and has not seen any attempt to limit motorized vehicles through this area. He stated that there is quite a bit of traffic and it is plowed, even if it isn't by the city. He stated that there is a quite a bit of car and snowmobile traffic that goes through the area. Michael Blomquist, stated that he has been fishing the lake for 20 years and the ice roads are plowed by residents that just want to go fish the lake. He stated that they take their own time to plow the road. He stated that people want to fish the lake and use a safe access which is Crescent Beach and the end of Grant Lorenz. He stated that you don't want to have ice shifts. He stated that people should know this before they buy a house because this is one of the busiest public lakes in the area. Councilmember Siakel stated that Tonka Bay does maintain Crescent Beach and Shorewood pays them a fee towards those services. She stated that she has never seen a police officer or anybody enforcing traffic on or off the lake at Crescent Beach and she has lived there since 1993. Planning Commission Chair Maddy suggested moving discussion onto fire lane #7. Planning Commissioner Eggenberger asked if, for the purpose of discussion, if they could group fire lanes #7410 together. There was a consensus to group fire lanes #7410 together. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 1, 2020 Page 17 of 23 Planning Commissioner Gault stated that all four of these fire lanes are overgrown with mature trees. Planning Commission Chair Maddy asked if the City needed four fire lanes in the area because of the size of Lake William. Planning Commissioner Gorham stated that in the event that the City wants to maintain some lake access here, he thinks fire lane #7 seems like the only decent option because the other ones are very steep and inaccessible. He noted that he had spoken with one of the neighbors who shared with him that once upon a time it was a pretty popular lake and people did use the access points from time to time. He stated that he would hate to see them all go away, but agrees that the City probably doesn't need all of them, especially because the others are fairly steep and inaccessible. Planning Commission Chair Maddy asked if there was a structure located on fire lane #10. Communications Director Moore stated that there is a resident who would like to speak, but has not been able to be unmuted on the call. She explained that this resident had typed comments that stated, "There is a parking lot right on Minnetonka Boulevard and also it gives direct access to them right off the trail." Councilmember Johnson explained how people can "raise their hand" and be unmuted in order to speak to the Commissions. Communications Director Moore stated that the resident added a comment, "It is right across from the Greenwood entrance." Planning Commission Chair Maddy stated that may speak to keeping an access on that side of Lake William. Park Commission Chair Mangold stated that he does not see a use for these fire lanes Planning Commissioner Riedel stated that given there is access for anybody who may want to kayak or otherwise from Minnetonka Boulevard and given it is a small lake without much incentive to go snowmobiling on it, he thinks there would be minimal use to any fire lane. He stated that this is essentially a completely different discussion from the fire lanes on Lake Minnetonka where there is considerable pressure and motivation to use them. Communications Director Moore stated that another resident who has realized that they can communicate via the comment section stated, "They would like to get back to the snowmobile/ATV discussion and that it is not legal on the streets at any time and that snowmobilers that are on the inside of the plow ridge it will reduce speed and there is a curfew." Planning Commission Chair Maddy stated that the Commissions had checked the ordinance on that issue. Planning Commissioner Riedel offered to copy and paste the ordinance that he read aloud earlier into the chat window. Planning Director Darling stated that she does believe there are some hourly restrictions on it, but it is in a different part of the snowmobile section. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 1, 2020 Page 18 of 23 Planning Commissioner Riedel offered to cut and paste that section in the chat window also. Councilmember Siakel suggested that City staff research that issue and report back because it appears as though the group is generalizing without accurate data. She stated that she thought it was clarified at a Council meeting that they are not allowed on City streets, so she thinks that issue needs to be clarified. Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that since there is access from Minnetonka Boulevard to this lake, he agrees that there is no reason for the City to retain the fire lanes on Lake William. Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that he agrees. Councilmember Siakel stated that all the fire lanes are in residential areas and just because this is Lake William, she doesn't see that much of a difference between what is on Lake William and what has been seen on some of the other fire lanes along Birch Bluff. She stated that they all cut between houses, have rugged terrain, have not been maintained, have not been used, and are obsolete. Park Commission Chair Mangold stated that he would argue that there are only two fire lanes that the Commissions have discussed that are really being used. Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that the fire lane with a drainage ditch is in a different category as well, so the City will need to keep that easement. He stated he feels, at the very least, the City should declassify them as "fire lanes". He stated that they are not being used as fire lanes and perhaps the City should call them lake access, service road, or park. Planning Commission Chair Maddy stated that is a good point that the City should not call these something that they haven't been for over 100 years. Councilmember Siakel stated that most of the descriptions are also obsolete for almost all of the fire lanes. She gave examples of being able to launch a kayak which at most of the fire lanes would be very difficult, if not impossible, to do and will not be used in that fashion. Park Commissioner Hirner stated that his concern is that if the City would get rid of all 4 fire lanes on Lake William there would not be any access to the lake within Shorewood, which he feels is a mistake. Planning Commissioner Eggenberger asked what kind of access the City would need to Lake William. Park Commissioner Hirner stated that he didn't know, but if the purpose is to have lake access, within Shorewood, the City would not have access to Lake William. Planning Commissioner Gorham stated that the neighbor told him that the fire lane was highly used before the lake became too toxic to inhabit, but should the lake get cleaned up sometime, the City may want to have access. He stated that he hates to see it go away if at some point the City may want it. Councilmember Siakel asked for clarification around the idea that the City has to maintain lake access for people. She noted that there are multiple places along Lake Minnetonka that have CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 1, 2020 Page 19 of 23 free access to the lake so she is unsure why it needs to be a goal of Shorewood to maintain lake access. Planning Commission Chair Maddy stated that he thinks this became part of the conversation because the City was under -utilizing some properties and through our Comprehensive Plan update, they found that people like to be connected to the lakes. He stated that the City has access to the lakes and our citizens like that access and he feels the conversation tonight is to decide whether they want to change this or leave it as it is. He stated that he thinks this is the higher -level discussion that the Commissioners were aiming for in discussing what they want to recommend to Council. Park Commission Chair Mangold stated that he is personally at the point where he believes the City does not need all of the fire lanes, but doesn't think he wants to let all of them go. Planning Commissioner Riedel stated that he agrees with Park Commission Chair Mangold and feels the fire lanes along Birch Bluff deserve more discussion, specific maintenance, and signage. He stated that none of the other fire lanes have immediate or long-term value to the City because the access is so limited and constrained. He stated that his personal opinion is that the two fire lanes on the islands and the four on Lake William should be vacated and much more discussion is needed for the fire lanes on Birch Bluff. Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that he agreed. Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that he agreed and does not think that the City needs to retain all four fire lanes along Birch Bluff, but agrees that will require a broader conversation_ He stated that he agrees with Park Commissioner Chair Mangold that if the City is going to have them, the City should be taking care of them and there should also be signage. He stated that he thinks the discussion about providing greater access to the lakes is an important conversation, because he is not sure that these really fulfill what people envision when they talk about access to the lakes. Park Commissioner Chair Mangold stated that he agrees that the fire lanes along Birch Bluff need much more discussion surrounding the various options, but the others he would support looking at options for vacating them. Planning Commissioner Gorham stated he thinks the Commissions are in agreement that fire lanes 8-10 should be vacated and suggested that the City begin with those and then tackle the nuances of the other ones individually. He stated that he feels like the City should hold on to them, because he is taking a conservative approach. Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that if the City really wants lake access, perhaps they should buy a property, as was suggested earlier, in order to make a decent lake access and not try to make one out of a fire lane. Planning Commissioner Gorham stated that he feels that solution feels extreme and feels that some of these parcels would just require some imagination to be able to make the most of what the City already has. Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that the City also needs to be willing to spend the money to maintain these parcels. He stated that if the City is going to keep these parcels, the City needs to maintain them. He stated that he feels some certainty needs to be provided and gave the example of near altercations that have occurred surrounding the use of fire lane #3. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 1, 2020 Page 20 of 23 Planning Commission Chair Maddy suggested that the group give a definitive separate recommendation for fire lane #3. Park Commissioner Gallivan suggested recommending that the City vacate fire lanes #8, #9, and #10. There was a consensus of the Commissions that fire lanes #8, #9, and #10 do not show any long-term benefit for the citizens and could be vacated. Planning Director Darling explained the process to vacate the fire lanes. Park Commission Chair Mangold suggested that perhaps the fire lanes that are kept should have a different classification and have some sort of signage clarifying that it is City land. Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that he likes that idea. Park Commissioner Hirner asked what legalities the City would have if the designation was different. Planning Commissioner Chair Maddy stated that it is City property and can be regulated as such. Planning Director Darling stated that they are public right-of-way, but are defined as fire lanes and shown on the official zoning map as fire lanes. She stated that if anything changed, it would also have to be changed in the Zoning Ordinance. Park Commission Chair Mangold stated that he is not sure his idea makes sense and just threw out the idea because of the lift station located at fire lane #2_ Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that he would suggest that the City just leave fire lane #2 alone. Planning Commission Chair Maddy stated that he likes the idea of putting up signage. Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that he does not think the City needs to keep it as is, as a fire lane. He stated that he feels it could be classified as City property that doesn't really fall under one of the categories of use because it is basically a service road. Planning Commissioner Gault stated that he likes the idea of designating it as a service road because it is located at the most remote location in the City. There was consensus of the Commissions to review the classification of fire lane #2 and consider designation as a service road, look at maintenance expectations from Public Works, and whatever decision is made that signage be placed on the property clarifying it. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 1, 2020 Page 21 of 23 Planning Commissioner Gorham stated that he would like to keep fire lane #1, but would like to hear more from Public Works regarding the maintenance needs. He reiterated that he would like to keep all the fire lanes, besides #8, #9, and #10. Park Commission Chair Mangold stated that perhaps that is the direction for right now is to get input from Public Works regarding maintenance of the other fire lanes and see if there are any liability issues that the City should make the Commissions aware of before any decisions are made regarding signage. Planning Commission Chair Maddy stated that his understanding is that the group would like to look into vacating #8, #9, and #10 and Public Works feedback on the other fire lanes, especially the drainage ditch near Crescent Beach and fire lane #2. Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that he feels that whatever the City decides to keep, maintenance of them needs to be kept up. Planning Commission Chair Maddy stated that the Commissions will get input from Public Works on all of the fire lanes. Planning Commissioner Gault stated that he would like to know what kind of maintenance they are talking about, especially for some of the fire lanes that are fully treed. He stated that for those it would be very difficult for someone to get a canoe or kayak down there and asked if the Commissions were saying that Public Works should be looking at maintaining a clear path to the lake shore. Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that even if the City does not allow public access, he feels the fire lane properties should be maintained, such as having the tree trimmed so it is not just wild property that no one knows is City property. Park Commission Chair Mangold stated that he believes that there are different levels of maintenance within Public Works on City owned properties so if these fell into the lowest, outlot category, he doesn't think much would be done other than to know that they needed to follow up if a tree fell down. Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that perhaps the minimum would be just a sign. Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that a sign would be fine, but if they are at the lowest maintenance category now, he would like to know how much it would cost to take the maintenance to the next level. Planning Commissioner Gault stated that his point is that if the City is going to maintain the property, it should be maintained to the level that the class allows. He stated that if the City doesn't want to do anything with the property, he doesn't understand why they would keep them. He stated that he thinks the minimum maintenance should be defined by the class, which would be allowing someone to walk from the street to the lake. He stated that he sees no sense in keeping them unless they are going to be maintained so they are usable to the residents of the City. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 1, 2020 Page 22 of 23 Councilmember Siakel stated that she feels the conversation has migrated to the functionality and maintenance with really not much discussion about the impact to the people and the residents that live near the fire lanes. She stated that if the City does vacate them there will be tax implications to the nearby residents so she feels it is not just a question of the functionality of the fire lane but also the impact it will have on the residents. She stated that she feels the City needs to solicit more feedback from the people that this will immediately impact before a decision is made. Planning Commissioner Gault stated that he agreed that the City should be soliciting feedback but disagrees that we should give more credence to the people that happen to be adjacent to the properties than the people that would use it if they knew about it and it was accessible. He stated that this is not property that should just be considered as only impacting the lake shore residents. Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that all the residents have access to the lake via neighboring towns, which brings up an important point about how important that is and whether our residents are currently being adequately served by what is available. Planning Commissioner Gorham stated that Councilmember Siakel is correct, because he doesn't fully understand the implications of vacating properties or if the nearby property owners would welcome having extra land or not. Planning Commissioner Eggenberger asked what would happen if the City decides they want to vacate a fire lane and the adjacent property owners are not interested in the land. Planning Commissioner Gorham suggested that perhaps this warrants another joint meeting to allow for discussion of some of the deeper points on this issue. The Commissions discussed giving parameters to Public Works regarding what type of maintenance costs they are looking for. Planning Director Darling stated that she thinks she has a good handle on what information the Commissions are looking for regarding maintenance for the fire lanes. Park Commission Chair Mangold stated that he would summarize the discussion as looking for input from Public Works on maintenance costs, signage options, input from residents around the fire lanes, and options for vacating. Planning Commission Chair Maddy stated that he would add the elephant in the room of whether the City would like to change the use of any of the fire lanes or have them remain with the status quo. Mr. Melnychuk stated that he is confused by the conversation that the Crescent Beach fire lane having use because there is no use on that fire lane as it exists today, because it is a ditch with overgrown trees, weeds, and buckthorn. He stated that is willing to maintain the property. Bruce Russell, stated that his grandpa owns the property at 26080 Birch Bluff Road. He stated that he knows that the fire lane near his property has not been maintained by the City at all and he has personally done quite a bit of the mowing on the property. He stated that a few years ago his grandpa installed new rip rap, but received a permit from the City and was allowed to put it along the fire lane as well, at his own cost. Park Commissioners Hirner and Gallivan left the meeting. ft� 0 I N L rN --I I r- *LfFlruml CITY OF SHOFXWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 c- 26 30-117-23 33 0015 KELLY A O'NEILL BRIAN T O'NIEILL 4565 ENC171ANTED PT MOUND MN 55364 I SEP 0 12020 Cl'ry OFSHO ';-��OD N, i X2: E RETUP..FN TO SENDER -0 UNABLE -fd FORWAFD -799 a 6 7 a - Q 5 2 a 6 - 2 Vp - 41, �iS351.8 9y. R aj \ (D 0 m $ / @ < r- 0 - § ® ° (D :3 c / D E 7 \ / 7 . J / \ f s 2 ^ /\ /&/\ 2 ) ƒ § F < < = m n = + \ § % ± 3 / k / 7 $ f 2 LA m� 2 2 CL 2 $ & 0 ° ° ] = r \ LA. / 2 / k / ƒ 0 m k rD 4 \ % & E /§ = $ E / c \ 7 F rD\ a ' o 7� k/ 0 0 y/\ LO / n ƒ \ ^ 2 _ — � _j 2 / ƒ 7 _ m UDC \ 0 / j \ \ / ° 7 2 ƒ / \ p rD E _ 0 _ % ] % = E co/ ƒ r / 2 / U (D7 $ % > m. 0 0 m 2 2° k / % = % n ] v 2 k 7 0§ 0 rD (D— � w W_ Q- 05 / 2 G== ID �/7 k rD / / ƒ (D 7 C) k $ \ / n 7 w = 0 J = + E \ rD \ _ CL r f 9 2 R 0 m 0 / 0 \ j D k rD ) 2 0 ] m 0 /cr / J / 0) = � 7 » 0 � • f c > M / & /:ten CD rD G J : (,r) Ln G) Ln L Lrl� (D O n N d O (1) Q,)p C = cp CL O CL o z C) p (7 Ln �1I E 0 Ul 6 W CL O O_ 3 a =. cn-' 0 1 r N rr O (D � CL ;' N 0 cu O O f1. flJ � O O r0•r �' + flq � A rD O c 3 3 C Ln -a o' v N O � rr � S fD (D A r+ O A (D n rD fD+ a O = - s rD fD D v � C � v � O O - C 0 3 3 O � C fD rD N 3 O C 3 o fD C fD -% rD 3 qQ rD G rD CL rD G ~' O N un N Ln t3' Ln O fD O 0 = A N O * -0 rD (D cu rt n fD v v N fS c rD 3 O 3 N cu fD a 'r+ C r+ fD w � N � r+ a fD < O L' C rD 0 3 d C n a OTJ K o m Q � D v C CLm ;:v `n -^ :2 -1 o N 7 (D � 0--a 0 o C O O O O (D — CD- C) fD rD rD p0 N 3 a a, �' rD w 7 o m �-0 O C� O A m C 3 fD N fD fD � O O rD C a N r+ -a rD O rD O r+ 3 O rD 3 0 (D N ao a v N a 0 C nu N W N O N O D N O N v N (D EA c o m rt -v �v o 7 7 LO d O a w n O 3 3 Ln O 7 (D rD :' m m (D r v 7 (D K�Mrm v 0 o� D o 7 C N (D LQ (D V) O- rr fD o n 0 3 C) w � v -V Lo � rt O CD 7 cy- (D Lo A O 3 A n� (D v al m a 3 v 3 0 CO c O W O M G O n (D 3 fD ram+ O c (D al rD r+ O Q w N v+ -•1 0 „ l0 --i cn -4 Cl m p c o m- cr M 0 Ln N S c S o cu rr G n n l0 (D v % rr v v "! 0 rnr n 0 n v O m y 0_ -« O m O= v rD• Q _ N O 0 0 v Uo S 00 021 � O Ln D pq v n M L" m 3 fD � c — '+ aj w rD cn A cn a, = N W Oq r+K � r) N N a rD 3 n. rr S CD�' UQ N O 3 rD 1 a) N O W O w O ui cn � • v rD n' a3i - r7 O u v a) r+ n• O cu LrD 3 UO N� in O 3 S O v+ rD — � w 0 M O C2 rD 3 Ln N_ Ln rD 3 rr 'G O rD � r2 c O , rD O S O Ln 0Ln 3 (D O V O — rD Mm 3 Omm m � rD rD rD n Oq O r cu O Ln v � n rD O (D m r) a) F 3 V) rD r+ fD (D v (D (D rD � � S u, s O Lo c Q m ram'+ m w Q Ln v m o 73 n S v m Q v O r+ Ln s -0 n � Ln D n rD O N G in (D Q' O (D fD y� in rD r r: O'0 c rD G rrDD N rc+ p m 3 O Q O c rO+ � = c (D L (nD �, O v rD -a G Lnr* Ul N G n a) U) (D rD 3 LA O rD Q- (D C * O r r fD (D. fD O Q S v Q Q (MD fnD rD v rD a) O rDLn r+ Z Ln 3 0 Ort r+ (n O C cn rD rr rD S O O (n - (D M_ rD 0 rD rD n rD=3 N rD fl- 3 rD rD Oo G S O S Q -s LAQ r+ Q O O + rD n c :3rD S N * �' = v cn ((DD rD c O O w Q O Q c NJ 3 0 N v O O- Q -+, O � O N O (p (D IIJ 3rD Q v v Q rt o 4! 0 �. LAG ' r O O "a O M r+ p :3 v cn n rD Ln �• O + O � rDrD Ln 10 :3 rD Oo O r+ ram+ � m aq O 3 n m + rD _+ rt Ln r+ Q O � Q Q (D * 'r G O p O r* S O O rt n p LA Q v 3 N v r+ �« S D' rD S O — o� m rD O n m to N O �E O S v r+ O O O O 3 r+ rD Q OrD r+ rD (D rD rx-r rN•r m O O O 0-r+ Q S r+ S (D rD 0 rD w rD C) rD 00 v Q v O O v N C rr (D n fT -n O O rr O O c N N N N O O M 3 04 IN w V1 77 I, ((DD W r rD c a. n Gi r M c Q r) S O O O v W n O 3 ('1 n� O rD v v O Co G c O O v G O n� (D 3 T. m 0 C rD v rD O Q v N 3 (A -•4 (A „ c m- cn --1 p „ � 'O o M O Ln c o v O o a 3 N r+ rf tD l0 rD v ar n :Q 0 n n rD r- O �' ::o v O v a) rD 0� O v !D' Q _ N O < p Ln an 5• D z v 0 v rD D 0) n aq (n rD O =3 O Z5 C: O' (IQ r+ Q c O c C1q W fD a N N a) oq rD LnNo O O_ W N p O s r) N d a) . N a fD 3 " of cu oN crq o N O � w rD O to cn ID n' n — n 0 a) w 3 CTq N � O fD (D 3 �+ MQ (D O W O aq N• �. -O rD 3 r' rD O (OD D U- O w o 3 rD O LM v rD O = fD mm � rD r0r vq O nri �P O :3Ln 70 3 cn V rD 0 m m a) y "I Ln -h O Q N O � rrD-r fD V fD rD fD uo � S � u, Q O Ln c Q m Z; o �' v � Ln n. Ln -a m O O r0-r S v (D Q 0 v? n � - _0 D --A p cn --I1 cn T O rD fD ' rD '+ <, ID °� i" rD O" v (D c rr O 3 0 n (D a) < Q < a) (ND N (D W v Ln r r O O O O O O 0 _ c+ n S rD O T A rD ::3 n v O rD < (D N r+ rD Ln+n r Gi O O G ((D < n v N g rD (D �. 3 rD ET70 On S rD -0 ; n O rD c n O O -+ �n UQ v rD rD -" O r+ O a) O rD (D (D � � Ln _0 orq 0 p " Q" rD n 0 O- 5 CU '+ O (D Q rD -z - Oj v r+ O -i Ln N -. NJ ar a) 0- O rD r r r O v OU n in rD (D n O O C 7 N N O O rr (D S cn O a) N N N n. O r O C vOi Ln r�D �^ rD rD O o Q (D C rD a) =3o 3 Q S N 0 rD =5 < O rD rD (D 3 v (D —T �, c ` — n) Q (D (D (D Ln D o rD �� c 3 rD (D C aq o ten. mv Quo a) rD O rD N 3. =3 aq rD (D r r �• fD (D = to V cn rD 1 rD O O ( ) O v 0- 0 0- O " O 0 O < 3 0 -0N N 3 Q � Oq O O N rD n a) rD (OD = O O O -4 c r+ 3 0_ N Q r�r O Q rD N :3 = n v r�r O 0 Q OrD v n (D cn O CL rD O + O 3 rD Ln tD O a- rD rD m �. rD O O r' ai fl Lq 0 ? o r+ v cu 0 rD �. =3 =r rD r+ Q o =3 O o- CL rD �G O O O O % �+ O Q N Q 0 = n 3 N rD s o 0 — O c m Cu (D rD * '^ o a o rD to V v h:3 O 0 c D Q � rD cu N' rD ,xt (D rD ° ° O nOi s � (D rD (4] (D r ° 0 Q < (D 0 < 3 (A (D � � 3 N (D v � Q 3. n G O � rD c O O 'DrD ° — ° -« Q rD (D cn < rD = O o oL 7� no ° o v , rD ° 3 * 7 (D< -tv 0 O O 7' 3 rD O- N (D 3' + (D 25 rt E (D (D h ❑. f3D "aO (DCD ::3S QCicr Q rD o- (D • r► rD � c rr O * r r S v O Q- Cp 0l fD rD 3 M _ rD -0 Cr �' :3 (D Q (D 3 a rD n O rn+ r► S O rD 7 rt M- O cu o (D 0 O rD " N aI--� O i^ n O :2 (D �^ n ° (mD in Q 0 3 C. O 3 n0 Q _ n O o� < 7 00 rD (p rD v Z% d O O r+ rD Q Q �+ ,n� 3 3 n r. 3 0 3 n < r�D 0) N n CLc (D (n� (D � ° 5' 3 c � rD -0 O Q c rD (D O a- N Q rD rD O rD 3 c 0- Q c N O a a, 2 c 3 m— =. rD 3' m N p D c rD 77 r° ° (D rD vq -0 '° '° (D O :3-< O CL rrDD + C: 0q 0• r2 n N' rD 3 h v O N =r ,-r n (D -n rD (D 3 O 00 < O fD '* 0 3 c n� d EL 3 O 0 a pq rD 00 v Q '* rD rD < O 3 Sr _a O * ,v n rD rD , � 00 rD r-r to * v (D O n to rr O (D O QQ G 0 O O 3 , ram+ rD _— fD :3 rD + m 7 Q w 3 O O O 03q FL y G n O 3 c (� N rD 3 w Q c. r'j O 3 N N cr (D O (D O c 3 n '+ c * (D rD Uq 7 v+ Cr0 n � rr O Q rD 0' � n C � m m ;u N m o M 0 o 0 O 1 0 L"I 1 � N n D Q_ G7 n (J Q < � '� S Q > 3 (J D r- o D c C w � tD Q O x 7 Q `G Q ►— A ? n Ci C `� C r — r i C C Y n (D -n N (J Q N p i'J Z7 rT' < CQ -+,�.•s v sQ_c,. : Q Z o•3 2(.n r Z ^' N CO C: _. s 7 . r- Q _. c, (D cJ _{ S Q Q rU O. r O 17, cp (D C - n Z) Q — p Y Wr Q < O `l z N O = (D Q_ 77 T f, In .o <- (D (D Q N (p �. (/1 Z n . c Q �• S — (ND N' O Q D U Q Q Q O Q Q O 3 m J• -p o O C- (p y p _ _ N • C) (D n ' O C Q D Q- Z .(D (-D O C Q. O' < Q UQ- m N Q_(7 O n (D (D Q O_ Q(D _- , p O n J O- ^ -a 3 n = (J (D J (D 0 (D 3 O ,, (D (D 1 CO (( D 0 O Q_ n _ Q (D Q_ O -+ � < Q O p� p a v (O o cD N' Q_ -O C (D -, Q? fJ T c Q O Q O Y C ._• -0 S O cy- Y. Q cr Y C `" D- O Q Y _•�r� T N Q (D O W O S 0 Q Q O� (D (D N N _ " 'Q co CD o (^� ui n m r, CO n n (Q �• 7 77 n -* o c C O r O N S N cD C- IN O CO Q — N 1 N Q C p N Q_ a D Q_ m (D - , (D n -� , Q < _. Q _ <- �� o L7 n O fJ (s O (D Q Q- Q Q 1 (D N t J~ Q_ (D Y Q p CQ Q O -nQr Z O -Ys =� (D (D c v- Q O _n O_ y W ij '_ a QQ O O G Q Q N N N _� • 'U f U C Q J N G• D Y Q 1 C1 f Z m> > A O. O cn ? O Q _? Cr. _ Q F (D O nj O n (D CD �, c (D O < (D W � cn Cr ttL- n Q (D Q Q ;-= n v C (Dco fD 3 o c� C a°p • Q CL ? �(D - C L^Q � T O l 6 O U v • C -oO , `= QT ID �' DIn OOO O ' —a (�D n fl (- - Q Q QC QO D3IjI rY' (Q =a' O X (D °D !� C)(D r< (D — cc n 3m m + 3 °< 10 03 j ;JLn' D °- -, _ (D M (D _(T 7 fD (D I'D '' n O O —< p O CL C n. v it 2 T L Q Q `^ -, (D 0 O Ul — rt -�► n � 0 (D � Q ! C)R) o Q Q (D D-0 Q C) (D - -� Q- p_ 0—c° o - o ID -* T O C1 Q O C1i — < 1] (D (D n fD C� < X (Q p C p to (D fZ �- �. (D`^ n T C7 (� O < n- (D Q tj'a (Q (D ; C � Q ID 0 3 i� • V 1 Q- 1 (D '•*� � (i H -r Q ci 0 fD n S O 3 t7- — `O n v V. j CL O 7!- C -Z rn 3 n . I nnJ.-. N "O 0Q °3 T<Q Q C3 ;o • O r C) (D (D O (D Q co — CD -* O -•, o Ln o w O :3 (D A' n Q ,' N �' n Q O w 0- In_� SrCL 3 lD Q_ (D C p Q 7 Q D cD (D (D (D 4 n (D lD D• (D v' n (D (OD (� (D ° (D Q C Qo _ +, m n (D cz o T ' " -T S (D -'' C2 Q O (D x S _ O lD (D FD D o in CNII - 3 O Q T fl. N T O (Q N x O (fl Q p Q cD ' (D (� C - n O Q _ fD a (Ji N O (n - (D j O a .a 3 < LA O v -r Q O S p — O (D Q= NO p (D CD c C o i' °- (�D 1 n < O 3 Q N o f (D -� 1 (D (1 b �? 5� a n Arno w (ID P� d� 5►C pCL 7 CD �� " cra C7 rn o R. � ao � CD 0 CD UQ N CD Cn CD (n CD° CD °o CD o b oCA UQ D o o CD .va 0 CD CD CD c co ° `� CD ao CD CD 0 CD 0 CD �Ni n C CD p CCDD CDCD CD It O r .-. c _ En CD cl, CD i]. CD CD Inn CD CD (D Q' �. h N CD r CD L� (D An CD CD En O O O En /b cn d Cep CD p 0 p cnA� UOQ - CD C n .�- • (n n EnO CD O1 * P. Q. CD � � �h �O A) CD .y CD O CD P CD CACD CD n �. C� CD cn CD Z3 CD cr W 'S ~h '+ O � CD CD CD CCDI .1, O (CD CD U�Q n � CD CD CD CD `� N A�CD 0 O Cj CD CD CD CD 0 � IM CD w• A� ° CD CD CD - t co `d7 •CCDD N v' C () A� CD �. O CD CD CD 00 O C4 -- UQ CD i cn Cl) N v cn N O J O 0 � O N 'C3 CD 0 0 w p 1 d P� CDcn CD s ips CD orq CD O ° CD -+h CD CD `O ° a' an CD O ~ rYv (D a CD �r O C p3 '-1 OO•cn Q C(D CD `�tz� CD U�Q (Yl CD 0 O CD CD ° � Z CD CD o o CD O C CD n CD r CD a CD o CD W `n CD O O CD CAD CAD O * 0 °o CD � `< o y = 0 �. n 3 O _ o o m � CD �• n �' o � CD o o y CD 0 Xw o � � �? o m O CD CD �`+t O CD �' O `C� CD inV) �• O m CD O (D D O CD C1CD 1= 0O u I� v 0 Q W o o 6D m 4 CD CD a a. CD CD N CD r+ CD CD CD ML N o CD o coo o 0 o Ln p.. o C o °. _ N p cn p cD C C7 En`� 0 G' O N .�-' + L3. 5- co CCD D ti r N CD � CD `c P rt CD ° v° p O O 0 is � � CD CD (D O N o � o ar4 cD o ss o ° o �% �. CD El y N P) °- cD o CD n �. (D "" (D DD� p CD l ca. 9 O N mac? G b CD W p v' CD a CD O CD CD CD p. A CD R N d O �n CD ti N CD CD v' Q, dQ O CD -4 UQ c CD dQ < p. A, CD n rD n C)CD CD <. w O .y P� CD Gam' b 0• v o c b CD� — CD V) Cs p — CL C 'd C, p p. fD C. "" CD w fD 5 G. A N ".� CD � n �i p. per,. O O CD N CD � x C O CD 0p. �' p' c*V) �. p := CL p' E' -0 = 0 ti � =s � y 7j °S 7d`D CD <-o (D CD n ° °� t" n N CD N mr CD E a4 zs (D p O p. a. o co , psw En CD CD CD -45 CD p4rD 0 a UQ N 7C' CD O , (n o CD CD =- o Zw A.oCD an n o o CD ( aD zr g� C/) E E CD Co — CD O CD p. "CD CD 'O CCD N Enp O w w �� cD CD p. ^ - o to 4 a�; l = o LA CD O10 DJ p CD w ° CD Ms p p p ""3 CD CD O 20 C) cn .• , CD CD t" • • • . • • • • • CD MS JC a `< `< • • a EA a P ^h �, o g 10 cD CD a CD = = x O -� n =s' (D ' `° n o X 0,— b� C� m CD r" v 9 7° AD CD CD yam~ � CD < `O M °.3 N "� ° G. C CD CL CD co 0 C CD C. ° CD ° CD CL o o o w CD '' tz ° t" a. CDc a" (-D+ M" E.r r° O = ar4 (D CD cr w CD CD 0 DCD CD ." 0) cr t Cn x 7 (p C. cD O IC CD CD w 00 C' Cr1� Oy t:L< C C O C CL = maC. 's CIQ a O �G (DD (17 = In O (D CD .+, (D A CD ° .`3 O `< M CD CD fJ4 � << CD �+ �d ID o �W o CD C P� CD sv tz O ° t ¢03 O CD O. CD b p < A 'rj y O r+ O C • (D C CD C C 5nCD y. 0 CD C. r �* CD 0 A� N w :� -rl y �o O rn CD 0 o n 0 CD � n p^ C E� o � CD ao o (DD � y (D M CD Clq O. M n CD CD O � C.. vCi Q- fD y En rn y C .'3 E' A co CD C. X5C 5�l nb to m A 0 0 0 �D u CD (D A. y O O C. _. CD CD En -i Cl. cD o aCD N. CD o�z y y rgo � O O � .� N CO o Er CD CD , 0 0 O.`O BCDCD o E: O y �N 0 �a �o 0 .4 W CD C3 CD SI CD o A . A CD N En 9 o a E, CD o _ A CD o" z 'o CD mr 0 •D 7i `, al' � R• Y �N CID w CD (D _ � N O O � CD CD CD O v' F O 0 CD CID C lD C t W � N O ro V3 vo � o ° cD a � O Es CID r'•7 C• ��h'� �`A� 4 y JJ R a is `yr -,; .1 ';%, ITI CD r Co w k�7 k CD a r 0 CD N tv Wit• A 5- I tr •i � `,/` • Pi =• a rLM ACD y A o QQ ^�• o 0 O- CL rn CD CD t E o (D En A fD CD CD C CD O. lD O ti � o tD ID CD E;• aQ o 0 w o Q. CD (.A 06 v, o 0 o o Er � C .I 4� na CD CD r, N CD � CD • -1 (D VJ CD CD f '.�S '.' .. ♦ JAS A% (DCD p� im c� ` ► ,: \ CD 0 ro En o CD o m 06 '• _ CD A) cD Jf L f'`'; f `W. y N E' E3+- CD k o .y�� A) CA CCD f g 0 � UQ (D n n a✓ o •• �a �o o � .� En CD H. C) E. A fD CD 't En En O lD O�- ti � A CD O " v, bQ p4 fD En Cr O N C A d4 A W O O Ln O. O S' CD It 54 (cD C. E' CD N rL Ov L _ ✓ n N a O Q. O O O CD C y CD y _ � 0 O o t-4 O CD D .ID CD � cm W r* �, CD °� CD �� I'll CD CD AD CD CD O.Ay O o CD Gn A CD (DC�7 4�, CD `< w D � �C ao C7cr CD 0 CD ¢� �00 /y u� CD d CL C ti CD O (�q S" CD a. CD o. y l , N � � 0 CD Ufa A A of CD CD CD Ca.o CD CD o CD00 cn N 00 cn CD 00 (n O 0 En (D O (D y A CD A co rY � O CD h O+ O 5 CD �f f A » @ " A — ?. � » CD CD CD ■ § ƒ \ n q ¥ ƒ \ CD( § 7 R = (n /\ /m T� CA « � A m� g * � 7 ƒ � 3 / k� o /9 n § § 00 � k C CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD, SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • 952.960.7900 www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhaII@ci.shorewood.mn.us July 2, 2020 Re: Upcoming Activity in the Fire Lane Adjacent to Your Property Dear Shorewood Property Owner: You are receiving this letter because you own property adjacent to one of the 10 fire lanes within the City of Shorewood. The City of Shorewood is currently reviewing uses allowed in the fire lane. Recently, surveyors identified property lines along all the fire lanes and has identified them using wooden lathe and ribbons. Members of the Planning Commission, Parks Commission and City Council will be touring all of the fire lanes. Due to the Covid 19 pandemic, the Commissioners and Councilmembers will be visiting the fire lanes individually. If you would like to see the information the Commission and Councilmembers were sent, a copy is available on the City's website at: http://ci.shorewood.mn.us/government/city departments/inspections/active applications. php If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at mdarlinggci.shorewood.mn.us or (952)960-7912. Sincerely, Marie Darling, AICP Planning Director SAPlannin&lanning Fi1.\App1icatioost2019 C.—Tire L—\2020 07 02 Lelia to property owners adjacent to Fire lanes.d— CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD, SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • 952.960.7900 www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhaII@ci.shorewood.mn.us April 7, 2020 Re: Upcoming Activity in the Fire Lane Adjacent to Your Property Dear Shorewood Property owner: You are receiving this letter because you own property adjacent to one of the 10 fire lanes within the City of Shorewood. The City of Shorewood is currently reviewing uses allowed in the fire lane. In the future (after the emergency declaration is removed), staff and the members of the Park and Planning Commissions and City Council will be visiting each fire lane. Within the next month, surveyors will be working in the fire lanes identifying the boundaries of each one. The surveyors won't be doing any physical alterations to the fire lanes except as needed to identify property lines. They will be working within daylight hours and will be identified as Bolton and Menck employees and wearing City of Shorewood badges. You will be notified again prior to the visit by the Commission and Council members. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at mdarling�a,ci.shorewood.mn.us or (952)960-7912. Sincerely, Marie Darling, AICP Planning Director SAPlmmurgTlmming FiWAppl-tionst2019 Ca —Tire Lm—\2020 04 07 Letter to property owners adia-1 to Fire Lmi-doe, 26 26-117-23 11 0033 26 26-117-23 140114 WILLIAM G HENDRICKSON STEPHEN HOME CONSTRUCTIN INC 4795 LAKEWAY TERRACE 3775 CO RD 92 N EXCELSIOR MN 55331 MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 26 26-117-23 11 0052 JENNIFER A FORTNER 26 0007 17-23 33 4805 FERNCROFT DR MAY RY KAY PILEY LEY SHOREWOOD MN 55331 2556E BIRCH BLUFF SHOREWOOD MN 55353 31 26 26-117-23 11 0062 CHERYL ANN O'BRIAN 28-117-23 33 028 4790 LAKEWAY TER M YC UK M360 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 BIRICHAELCH 2536E BIRCH BLUFF RD H BLUFF RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 26 26-117-23 14 0018 ROBERT & CAROLYN BYE 26 29-117-23 43 0001 4810 RUSTIC WAY DMA INVESTMENTS LLC EXCELSIOR MN 55331 805 ENTERPRISE DR E SUITE H BELLE PLAINE MN 56011 26 26-117-23 14 0020 DANIEL J & TERRY AUSTIN 26 29-117-23 43 0005 4860 RUSTIC WAY JOAN R & JAMES H RUSSELL SHOREWOOD MN 55331 1566 QUEBEC AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY MN 55427 26 26-117-23 14 0027 JAMES/KATHERINE SEDESKY 26 29-117-23 43 0006 21040IVY LA JESS BOYSEN SHOREWOOD MN 55331 CHRISTINE LARSEN 17251 CEDARCREST DR EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55347 26 26-117-23 14 0029 NICHOLAUS J DAHL 26 29-117-23 43 0011 4815 FERNCROFT DR MARK BONGARD & KATHY BONGARD SHOREWOOD MN 55331 2626E BIRCH BLUFF SHOREWOOD MN 55353 31 26 26-117-23 14 75 26 29-117-23 44 0040 CITY OF SH EWOOD WALLACE & JUDITH KING 5755 COU RY CLUB RD 25620 BIRCH BLUFF RD SHOR OOD MN 55331 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 26 2C,-1 17-2 14 0088 CITY OF OREWOOD 5755 C NTRY CLUB ROAD SIiO WOOD MN 55331 26 26-117-23 14 0111 MARGARET E PREHALL 4828 RUSTIC WAY SHOREWOOD MN 55331 26 30-117-23 42 0002 STEVEN FRANK HOKANSON 8502 E 3RD ST TUCSON AZ 85710 26 30-117-23 42 0003 JEFFREY ROBINSON 5260 SHADY ISLAND RD MOUND MN 55364 26 30-117-23 42 0004 JOHN E BURY 201 WEST 121 ST ST BURNSVILLE MN 55337 26 30-117-23 42 00 STEVENFR HOKANSON 8502 E 3 T TUC AZ 85710 26 30-117-23 42 0007 BURTON A BENSON 2301 VILLAGE LA APT 4412 BLOOMINGTON MN 55431 26 30-1 17-23 42 0008 GARY A LOEBER 5185 SHADY ISLAND RD MOUND MN 55364 26XDYISLAND SHOCIATION C/S 53D RD M 26 30-117-23 42 0020 GAYNAL L CROSS 5305 SHADY ISLAND RD MOUND MN 55364 26 30-117-23 42 0021 CHRISTOPHER/JAMI GEORGE 5285 SHADY ISLAND RD MOUND MN 55364 26 30-1 17-23 33 0015 KELLY A O'NEILL BRIAN T O'NEILL 4565 ENCHANTED PT MOUND MN 55364 26 30-117-23 33 0022 JUSTIN J ROBINETTE 4530 ENCHANTED PT MOUND MN 55364 26 30-117-23 33 0025 UPPER MTKA YACHT CLUB 4165 SHORELINE DR SUITE 10 SPRING PARK MN 55384 26 30-117-23 33 0034 SCOTT D & JENNIFER D BROWN 4560 ENCHANTED PT MOUND MN 55364 26 30-1�SHOOOD CITY O 5755 COB RD SH OOD MN 55331 26 30-117-23 33 0041 JOEL L & LORI J SCHUENKE 4485 ENCHANTED POINT SHOREWOOD MN 55364 26 30-117-23 33 0042 ELIZABETH B LARSEN 2205 KENWOOD PKWY MINNEAPOLIS MN 55405 26 30-117-23 34 0002 MICHAEL & SAGIT ROSENBERG 4595 ENCHANTED PT MOUND MN 55364 IA.11A.W111 t III I I 11B� , - , Opill.11 '11 MI tit Iiiii. [firrIll I F � I i I k I I I SLZ 0 -,a Lsz* a 'a O-L S -1 Z'V a a V S V 17 SV �i SA 17 2iC 10 M a M 2 s O-L N1jP-L2V 7z TYa m 6EzS93uojdiz NOHd 03-11VIN ozoz zo -inr 6L92t7Z0000 009*000$ S3 '(&Od t9£ NW (INCIOIN Id G:IINVH,)NH S95t 1-119N,O i NVINO 111ANIO v All -AN 9 100 £L £Z-L I I -0£ 9Z N C) /-F68-lCCSS ViOSANNIA 'GOOW3HOHS avou qn-io AdiNnoo ssLs CIOOAXHHOHS dO AID 5755 Country Club Road • Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 952.960.7900 * www.ci.shorewood.mn.us January 23, 2020 Michael and Sagit Rosenberg 4595 Enchanted Point Shorewood, MN 55331 Mr. and Ms. Rosenberg, Thank you for taking the time to come to City Hall and meet with us regarding the fire lane next to your property at 4595 Enchanted Point. It was valuable to have everyone together to discuss the situation as it stands and next steps in the process. You will be required to relocate the boat lift and any personal items within the fire lane property to your personal property. This can be done anytime between now and May 1, 2020. You will also be required to cap the sprinkler system at the property line. Currently the sprinkler system extends into the fire lane and the line must be terminated at the property line. This work must be completed by June 1, 2020. The City will be doing to visits to all of the fire lanes in April with the Park and Planning Commissions. These meetings will be public and you are welcome to attend. They will be visiting the fire lane next to your property and will discuss next steps in regards to the use and necessary landscaping. Next steps in regards to landscaping will be determined after this visit. These discussions may result in new orders to move other private improvements. At the meeting it was also discussed that you are selling this property. You must disclose the improvement the property line to any new buyer. If there is anything in this letter that you feel does not represent your understanding of what was discussed at the meeting, please let us know so we can clarify to make sure we are all on the same page with this matter moving forward. Katriona Filipovitch Molasky Planning Technician i NOV - 6 1991 • E • ORDINANCE NO. 245 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 802 OF THE SHOREWOOD CITY CODE RELATING TO SNOWMOBILES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1. City Code Section 802 is hereby amended in its entirety as follows: 802.01: 802.02: 802.03: 802.04: 802.05: 802.06: 802.07: 802.08: 802.09: 802.10: 802.01: DEFINITIONS: Definitions Operation on Streets and Highways Operation Generally Equipment Application of Other Laws Persons Under Certain Age Leaving Snowmobile Unattended Chasing Animals Forbidden Littering and Obstructions Violations Subd. 1. BOULEVARD: That portion of the street right-of-way between the curb line and the street boundary line in platted areas. Subd. 2. OPERATE: To ride in or on and control the operation of a snowmobile. Subd. 3. OPERATOR: Every person who operates or is in actual physical control of a snowmobile. Subd. 4. ORGANIZED EVENT: An event sponsored and conducted by the Park and Recreation Commission, the Chamber of Commerce, Jaycees, American Legion or similar Council -recognized civic groups or associations. Subd. 5. OWNER: A person, other than a lienholder, having the property in or title to a snowmobile and entitled to the use or possession thereof. Subd. 6. PERSON: Includes an individual, partnership, corporation, and any body of persons, whether incorporated or not, the State of Minnesota and its agencies and political subdivisions, except this definition does not include police officers or duly authorized and uniformed snow patrol personnel in the performance of their duties. I Subd. 7. RIGHT-OF-WAY: The entire strip of land traversed • by a highway in which the public owns the fee or an easement for roadway purposes. Subd. 8. ROADWAY: That portion of a street or highway improved, designed, or ordinarily used for vehicular travel, including the shoulder. Subd. 9. SAFETY or DEADMAN THROTTLE: A device which, when pressure is removed from the engine accelerator or throttle, causes the motor to be disengaged from the driving track. Subd. 10. SNOWMOBILE: A self-propelled vehicle designed for travel on snow or ice or natural terrain steered by skis or runners. Subd. 11. STREET or HIGHWAY: The entire width between boundary lines of any way or place when any part thereof is open to the use of the public, as a matter of right, for the purpose of vehicular traffic. Subd. 12. HIKING AND BIKING TRAIL: The old railroad corridor, a multiuse trail corridor, which runs NE - SW through Shorewood and other western suburbs, and is owned by Hennepin County. • 802.02: OPERATION ON STREETS AND HIGHWAYS: Subd. 1. No person shall operate a snowmobile upon the roadway, shoulder or inside bank or slope of any trunk, County -State aid, City or County highway in the City and, in the case of a divided trunk or County highway, on the right-of-way between the opposing lanes of traffic, except as provided in this Chapter, nor shall operation on any such highway be permitted, where the roadway directly abuts a public sidewalk or property used for private purposes. No person shall operate a snowmobile within the right-of-way of any trunk, County -State aid, City or County highway between the hours of one-half (1/2) hour after sunset to one-half (1/2) hour before sunrise, except on the right-hand side of such right-of-way and in the same direction as the highway traffic on the nearest lane of the roadway adjacent thereto. No snowmobile shall be operated at any time within the right-of-way of any interstate highway or freeway within the City. Subd. 2. No person shall operate a snowmobile upon the roadway of any street or highway except for the purpose of direct travel from the person's home to 2. h k' the closest snowmobile area by the shortest . possible route and then only if travel on the adjacent street or highway right-of-way is restricted because of developed yards or physical barriers. Subd. 3. A snowmobile may make a direct crossing of a street or highway except an interstate highway or freeway, provided: a. The crossing is made at an angle of approximately ninety degrees (90°) to the direction of the street or highway and at a place where no obstruction prevents a quick and safe crossing. b. The snowmobile is brought up to a complete stop before crossing the shoulder or main travelled way of the highway. C. The operator of the snowmobile must yield the right-of-way to all oncoming traffic. d. In crossing a divided street or highway, the crossing is made at an intersection of such street or highway with another public street or highway. e. If the crossing is made between the hours of • one-half (1/2) hour after sunset to one-half (1/2) hour before sunrise or in conditions of reduced visibility, only if both front and rear lights are illuminated. Subd. 4. No snowmobile shall be operated on a street or highway within the City at a speed exceeding ten (10) miles per hour, nor on the Hiking and Biking Trail at a speed exceeding twenty (20) miles per hour. Subd. 5. No snowmobile shall enter any uncontrolled intersection without making a complete stop. The operator shall then yield the right-of-way to any vehicles or pedestrians. Subd. 6. Notwithstanding any prohibition in this Chapter, a snowmobile may be operated on a public thoroughfare in an emergency during the period of time when snow upon such thoroughfare renders travel by automobile impractical. Subd. 7. No person shall operate a snowmobile on the shoulder of the Hiking and Biking Trail or in the ditch or embankment, except for the purpose of • entering or leaving the trail, or for the purpose of turning around. 3. Subd. 8. An operator shall bring his snowmobile to a stop • and switch off the engine when flagged by a police officer or duly authorized uniformed Snow Patrol member. 802.03: OPERATION GENERALLY: Except as otherwise specifically permitted and authorized, it is unlawful for any person to operate a snowmobile within the limits of the City in the following manner: Subd. 1. On a public sidewalk or walkway provided or used for pedestrian travel, or on boulevards within any public right-of-way. Subd. 2. On private property of another without lawful authority or express consent of the owner or lessee. Subd. 3. On any other publicly -owned lands and frozen water, including but not limited to park property, public or private school grounds, playgrounds, recreation areas and golf courses, except areas previously listed or authorized for such use by the proper public authority. In such areas, such use shall be lawful and snowmobiles may be driven in and out of such areas by the shortest route. Authorized areas • in the City owned by the City shall be designated by Council resolution. Notwithstanding anything in this Section contained to the contrary, snowmobile operation shall be permitted on all public bodies of water within the City, provided that said operation shall comply in all respects with provisions of this Chapter and all other City ordinances. E Subd. 4. At any place while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or narcotics or habit forming drugs. Subd. 5. At a rate of speed greater than reasonable or proper under all the surrounding circumstances. Racing is prohibited except as may be specifically authorized as part of an organized event, which authorization shall be by permit issued by the City Council. Maximum speed limits shall be set from time to time by Council resolution. Subd. 6. At any place in a careless, reckless, or negligent manner so as to endanger the person or property of another or to cause injury of damage thereto. 4. M Subd. 7. So as to tow any person or thing on a public street or highway except through use of a rigid tow bar attached to the rear of the snowmobile. Subd. 8. When the noise level of the snowmobile exceeds seventy-eight (78) decibels on the A Scale at fifty feet (501). Subd. 9. Within the right-of-way of any public street or highway within the City, unless the operator shall have a valid motor vehicle driver's license issued by the State of Minnesota or a valid snowmobile safety certificate issued by the Commissioner of Natural Resources, or unless accompanied by a licensed driver who is actually occupying a seat in the vehicle. Subd. 10. Within the City between the hours of eleven o'clock (11:00) p.m. and seven o'clock (7:00) a.m. except for purposes of transportation to the residence of the operator. Subd. 11. Abreast of another snowmobile on the Hiking and Biking Trail except when overtaking and passing another snowmobile. 802.04: EQUIPMENT: It is unlawful for any person to • operate or for the owner to cause or knowingly permit the operation of a snowmobile any place within the limits of the City unless it is equipped with the following: • Subd. 1. Standard mufflers which are properly attached and in constant operation and which reduce the noise of operation of the motor to the minimum necessary for operation. Mufflers shall comply with Minnesota Rules Part 6100.5100, subp. 5 which certifies that a new snowmobile complies with the noise limitation requirements of this rule. A manufacturer shall make such a certification based on measurements made in accordance with the SAE Recommended Practice J192(a) as set forth in the Report of the Vehicle Sound Level Committee, as approved by the Society of Automotive Engineers September, 1970, and revised November, 1973. Subd. 2. Brakes adequate to control the movement of and to stop and hold the snowmobile under any conditions of operation. Subd. 3. A "safety or deadman" throttle in operating condition. 5. Subd. 4. At least one clear lamp attached to the front, with • sufficient intensity to reveal persons and vehicles at a distance of at least one hundred feet (1001) ahead during the hours of darkness under normal atmospheric conditions. Such head lamp shall be so aimed that glaring rays are not projected into the eyes of an oncoming vehicle operator. It shall also be equipped with at least one red tail lamp having a minimum candle power of sufficient intensity to exhibit a red light plainly visible from a distance of five hundred feet (5001) to the rear during the hours of darkness under normal atmospheric conditions. The equipment shall be in operating condition when the vehicle is operated between the hours of one-half (1/2) hour after sunset to one-half (1/2) hour before sunrise or at times of reduced visibility. Subd. 5. Reflective material at least sixteen (16) square inches on each side, forward of the handlebars, so as to reflect or beam light at a ninety degree (901) angle. 802:05: APPLICATION OF OTHER LAWS: City traffic ordinances shall apply to the operation of snowmobiles upon streets and highways, and Minnesota Statutes sections 84.81 to 84.88 and Minnesota Statutes . Chapter 169, as amended, and except for those provisions relating to required equipment, are hereby adopted by reference. 802.06: PERSONS UNDER CERTAIN AGE: Subd. 1. It is unlawful for any person under fourteen (14) years of age to operate on streets, highways, public lands or frozen water or make a direct crossing of a street or highway as the operator of a snowmobile unless accompanied by a parent or guardian. A person fourteen (14) years of age or older, but less than eighteen (18) years of age, may operate a snowmobile on streets, highway, public lands or frozen waters as permitted under this Section and make a direct crossing of a street or highway only if he has in his immediate possession a valid snowmobile safety certificate issued by the Commissioner of Natural Resources. Subd. 2. It is unlawful for the owner of a snowmobile to permit the snowmobile to be operated contrary to the provisions of this Section. 802.07: LEAVING SNOWMOBILE UNATTENDED: Every person leaving a snowmobile in a public place shall lock the ignition, remove the key, and take the same with him. go is • 802.08: CHASING ANIMALS FORBIDDEN: It intentionally drive, chase, run animal, wild or domestic, with 802.09: LITTERING AND OBSTRUCTIONS: is unlawful to over, or kill any a snowmobile. Subd. 1. No person shall deposit paper, litter, rubbish, or debris on public or private property, or throw paper, litter, rubbish, or debris from snowmobiles. Subd. 2. No person shall place obstructions, including ice blocks, on publicly -owned lands or frozen waters so as to interfere with the lawful use thereof by the public. Subd. 3. All traffic control devices used for routing snowmobile traffic away from private and public property shall be located on the same private or public property and shall be in place no earlier than November 1 and shall be removed on or before April 15. 802.10: VIOLATIONS: Any person violating the provisions of this Chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor. Section 2. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA, this 28th day of October , 1991. arbara J. rancel, Mayor ATT ST: Jam C. Hurm Ci Administator/Clerk WCG:IF8s rM R ❑❑❑❑ rn � cn v 4 w w w (Q (Q D CL T n -n -n v Q) Q) v CD O C.) O O cn O Q) O O CD C() Ct) C/) C/) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Z1 �7 Z7 �(7 ICJ ail � o o cQ cQ cQ CD n � � v v v c3 �• 1 � - N --A, � N O N O W O C)t O O 0 0 o O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 cn o cn v, -Q v, -C� v, -Q i o N rn n CD D r 0 o v_ n cn r z�G) Cl)r rn n moo 0 0 D D r CD =�v (D Z- m o p C a7 �v< � "' �u n p p �D ID m -� ( Cl) o CD ) ° m z -Ii o I� • o 0 o N �z 0 O 0 Ow • n o „C:) (DC:) 11 W 0 A W N o p S o V— HBI Rd n y 40 ❑ ❑❑❑ m cn o� ;o o n m > m z V � O Q CQ CD CQ CD CQ CD CQ CD r 3cn m � O O O O O O O O -I cn ❑ ❑ ❑ 1-1 ❑ ❑ n D n m D � O O cQ cQ cQ ry o �• `° cn N O k O O - U1 O N O O O N O W O CSC O N O O W O 0 O O 0 O O 0 O 0 `Q 0 O Co -o 0 O co `P `Q ,Q 10 ^® ^� l J l J N 3 m 0 o 0 D m� v r p CD CD n � C- Sy 0 CD ❑❑cn z �U G) cn m m 0 m 0 0 o CD m v � r cn CD CD -, o :3 aCD c v CD M�� ;o =' C n tea° o CDd o CD v CD CD O 0 I� • o 0 o N O O O rr��• CT ? nj O 'T1 O r� m O 0 a Vine Hill Rd So n / Imo n `\ o u — o' p co H �4 z ll 1 Ei N --JUA ]i1N O ` r 1> IN o ° o p k W rn _ 0. 3.ZoITY OF GREENWO I--�-�-- C I T Y OF S HOR EWOOD W t p C U 5° 3!. '4l So %' fa - S 6o y7T./ u 33 v to CD Q o.' J 1 �.- .' 0 �U 1V W ^ m e p I 1 U7 iz l .300 .J! 102 to day o , a• 7. d w t � _� am a -��=,W N' . �e �q ° '� � °�-.� P.I •P.1 � DR FT 77— �.� 'F�R�� 5a17 4014 v't�h� � API � /6i PLC h N _ � V1 , __ ,; is � �� •y .t •tee - W - h[ T 11P 4 : Ge � �''i?.A — � n (A 'P �..-t� r % •� cc to 4 \�.� 0 3"Jo � o p 2W � . ' °® . �t�c•'•:�}:.., W n Is. �P . 'yi� / /'° .. 2-.p`D - Y. go 14 04 "ice � `{ _ V s• � .1D .� ZJL'6. �-P dy. � ` Np .. C .e ✓ ✓ r /-�3 M di po zzz `�( '°' Vr' to Rl o RUSTIC a9 13 �° �,�► y Z. 57. 60 °� a v �.,' `� � - �� b\ti � \ � ��"- r; '`°t` y�_ 1;1�4�2'9 1=1os!'Tz• �J - � Si' � 6 sop eta �, s z 6J �� Elf1. Nt , ti 'v r , e :3 3 r' . - a tfr a 60 .P. 2 - �Q 4 ^ 6T � fO �C f, 0 60 • = %` .,,,_2 - 6 jc�t< ''��,. ! N�V'J � G 151 � (,, ' � t�1{- N � .. O 1 .tq •'�` � '-P6 . 8 80 ' � _ }S .+'.,f:` '�.i j S�Ot r � Pei ' `� .�••' �•/ ric � i � 1� a- 2 �e O\� JO h o �n •••.. r /��oP' o �... W lT� �s y'� 1 r _ \y > p! � "�a96 0 W.ti ® �" to ;,•� �' _. - o o � 'd` �1.' 4i 23 3 11• /��' `p ts� ion"! GS s0 � � QQ\ `aO `,/ A f _ � � r � y � N N :71Y1�: p� Y� ` .1�•Itt/' A J � � � F w, ca J N 4 4 .moo `• �,f �' j I/ o O sn��•N- Fn clr- ` J �•. f,/�7' 8°b, 4• o " �•.� It 13d Y� Aa n ` _rO ,C S �c b,,q y6 q. f �• . l Av s 6 , N' ►�E� T GI it LIA l./� or IP -It:W W 1 �P-1.. o L O / .. N.I _ d !. �56'. 955,3 60 14 I fA ,1 `� �'� f �►'".+ v, J<; 17 I`� -%l � °• N �. -N mot' '�� J -� f � Q ° `n v 9 ,INKS/ tto 6u fTa / Of V, I l \ ~ �' �0 t r 74 � � • .(, :, d.: �.ti ,, �`.'{ S�, �\ CD tv�r�y oIt k : 1:us l°se �J jFF".. 4 , �: U� I , • ' �' . 9 'f IX Ctj,� O 5 /'�� in N ' 4 o N�� o o ® J swx Q i N8°i1'^6ESrtS D Q ; r v /oT. % f gy Ste/ 4I.Y 90 O_ C111j s - t o a6 w� c�1,. r J oL� 6 1 �a —j;-i' Y �j 1 �` 1, h, 0 O il k � ' '� a � y,'n,: g44L r •� m ,2 a '�!' A � \ �, ,�. � ,k � V\'•C l7 Y �\ SNt c'34.27 CIT OF 140 7DEE A�6�tQ +�o . Si.. ;. °3 W�w`i o N'°�Z 349175 NO'0:'ryE v g 1 ca r.{ rX a � o 5- 6..� {. - D w 50 f Il . N tD �/ �� .Q 'yr[Jj�'�,-, pN `,`�� 1 °, • ; ._•,�., . 7�...+Y `_�' ° °, -a m Rf^� j� r no°i �'% Ol - •m w e ?. '' to. �i? tl•rQ,�4 Jr� N ti (es POST 3s _ 4P q 11-4 CITY OF SHOREWOOD�° EWOODYMINNCLUESOTA55331 02 1P .p D-8927 "°!� SHO �C��le @@ CC ®0®.J� 0000248679 NOV 14 201 FROM 71PCODF55331 RECEIVED DEC 162019 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PROPERTY OV 7NP P 26100 BIRCH E-It-T_g_ 553314049-IN 009 12/12 /19 SHOREWOOD. RZTURN TO SENUR MULE TO FORWARD VXABL4 TO FORWARD w _ � _ � _ _. � _ v _ � ti ��;�� itieriMai�il�i,ll+I�ill�►lil�►!Ili�o�ti►le�ili�,ill�,lii,l►III=!!►lII.! CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 Country Club Road • Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 9952-960-7900 www.ci.shorewood.mmus • cityha11@ci.shorewood.mn.us November 14, 2019 Subject: Continued Fire Lane Discussion To: Adjacent Property Owners and Those Expressing Interest in the Topic: As you recall, the City has 10 Fire Lanes that provide access to either Lake Minnetonka or Lake William. Over the course of the last year, the Planning and Parks Commission and the City Council have discussed the future of the fire lanes. Until a formal study can be completed, the City Council directed staff to enforce the current ordinances. Toward that end, staff will be placing barriers in the Grant Lorenz fire lane to cut off prohibited vehicle access to Lake Minnetonka. The Crescent Beach Fire Lane will remain a legal point of entry to Lake Minnetonka for snowmobiles. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Marie Darling, AIC] Planning Director CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 Country Club Road • Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 •952-960-7900 www.ci.shorewood.mmus • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us November 14, 2019 Subject: Continued Fire Lane Discussion To: Adjacent Property Owners and Those Expressing Interest in the Topic: As you recall, the City has 10 Fire Lanes that provide access to either Lake Minnetonka or Lake William. Over the course of the last year, the Planning and Parks Commission and the City Council have discussed the future of the fire lanes. Until a formal study can be completed, the City Council directed staff to enforce the current ordinances. Toward that end, staff will be placing barriers in the Grant Lorenz fire lane to cut off prohibited vehicle access to Lake Minnetonka. The Crescent Beach Fire Lane will remain a legal point of entry to Lake Minnetonka for snowmobiles. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Marie Darling, AICI Planning Director T T Wldn-dod pjogaa al .salanpa juawa6jeya T I Ab3/i��ti08�� ap sues + �09L5 d3lltr aege� al zasoit�fi uJoawane , ap ue;e amy�ey el �a4ldaa v ® Jafad ip selpe; sonenbl}l JOHN ARNST MICHAEL MELNYCHUK 5480 TEAL CIRCLE 25360 BIRCH BLUFF RD SHOREWOOD MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 MIKE & GILLIAN BLOMQUIST PROPERTY OWNER 5425 GRANT LORENZ RD 26080 BIRCH BLUFF RD SHOREWOOD MN 55331 SHOREWOOD, MN 55331 JOHN E. GRZYBEK PROPERTY OWNER 730 WINSLOW AVE 26100 BIRCH BLUFF RD SAINT PAUL, MN 55107 SHOREWOOD, MN 55331 MARTIN WOODY MARK & KATHY BONGARD 26405 SMITHTOWN RD 26260 BIRCH BLUFF RD SHOREWOOD MN 55331 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 ROBERT & CONNIE MILSTEIN PROPERTY OWNER 26050 SHOREWOOD OAKS DR' 26310 BIRCH BLUFF RD SHOREWOOD MN 55331 SHOREWOOD, MN 55331 JEFF WYATT PROPERTY OWNER 5335 EUREKA RD 4595 ENCHANTED PT SHOREWOOD, MN 55331 SHOREWOOD, MN 55364 PROPERTY OWNER SUSAN ANACKER 25620 BIRCH BLUFF RD 26915 NOBLE RD SHOREWOOD MN 55331 SHOREWOOD, MN 55331 MARY PILLEY 25560 BIRCH BLUFF RD SHOREWOOD MN 55331 �a096S ® i �� ® T, vua6p3 do-dod asodua jaded paaA q @09LS ale'dwai maw asn og aull 6uo'e puagPENWE p i ssagel ®'aad Ase3 PP� r pyr II t0 `F''� • / �� 47-1 f �b'ZZI7T qD to T / \S O \ ' r\ e � - /� _•ij � ti yeti `�� T N '�0/ �S1/ � ' I l 1 Iry YIL 7L co if o�F-�h_ aOD }' —�— M b eo ht T IS. - 7 d 1 Z. _ —J wx A/ 0 '/ INC hibit B N \ s \\ FIRE LAPT] NO 21 JM . Enchanted Point 1= I ; A .a e \ C � o � %�>`,—Z i _r V.. w cc a w cc a CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY for: M&M Home Contractors PROPERTY DESCRMMON THIS SURVEY REPRESENTS PROPOSED CONDITIONS WITH DETACHED GARAGE. of 15. That Part of Lot 16. Stork 1,lying motherly of the nmtnedy 21.30 feet of said Lot 16, and apt of the East MOO het of said Lot it Lot, 20 Lot 0 distant 2550 ulttthereofWastoh as kh msasaready of alineaid draden fro, the .line, »ore of Northeaster miner of the S� Yoe of the North 21.30 feet of said Lot 16 .H)t the East line of said Lot 0, to a point ou the North line of said Lot 21 smart that part of the. N 1/2 of the W 1/2 lying, Westerly of the following deeaibed line Commencng at the Sputhweri comer of the North Half of the West Hoff of said Lot 21; thence on an asaunee bearng of South 48 degrees 06 minutes 12 second. East along the South Ins of sold North. Half of the West Half a datmat. of 14.00 fast to the point of beginning of the fine being described• thence North 11 degrees 48 fined br 00 sofones East a dlstmce of 2592 fasC thence along a. tangential curve ronwve to the East hovng a radius of 73.00 feet and central angle of 33 degrees 35 dnhutes DO seconds o distance of 4279 feet to a point of com0 w -ture:: thence. along a tangential curve emeow to the scut havin9 a radius o/ 35.00. feel to Its intersection sith the East line of said N 112 of W 1/2, and said Me there ending; nd All n Enchanted Parr Lake. Mlmetanka PROPERTY ADDRESS \ 4485 Endo, N 55364 Shorawoad, MN 55384 ' ' NJi PROPOSED ELEVATIONS Gorpge. F1aar ak tlthis - 9357 TOP of Foundation - 9357 Lowest Floor - 9357 Y Q (ts35 g - I BOB - D zD aD SETBAIX RC-0UIREMENTa }1.3 \ Scale �n Feat aide - 30 feet (/0 feet "") G Lake - 50 test it- 0HW ' �+ h _ 310 2ryov \ \ yr �. p ett ��qn �\ 73. LEGEND BENCHMARK "�A �� ti 71. ?60 \ ®% Denotes Proposed OawHm - \ �P�� iii XXILX Denotes E f tirg Els-tim Top of .SPIKE as shown. Dev. EIM 66 // ry• - \. ? y Domes Offset Drainage O 0anates Odeon HUD or tySpike E. AREAS &IMPERVIOUS sp9a1y 8.. ( nr ^� j � � \ �ebSg)ti \ --- Donato Grain. ma Utility Eaaa. 7 • Denat. U=t found tot Arse - 6D841 all. it - 1.88 a- S 686 97s� \ `\ 61 /! O Denotes Mmument Set Eaetng kenerwms A era, ��4,L \ \ z, to Denotes Dilating Tree H se B forage 2739 sq. H. �.,{O85 ` ` \ \- 81T 16 \ Database Tree Remowl Or y - 1232 m. i ((( 1 i cm to man gmage - N aq t 87 3 20 •�-••• Denotes Construction Limits Walk 129 �. n SW fAR Nl 2 OF ..' \4� Frmt Stoop 19 sR: it. W1/2 F OT 2 s I Dot reed goraq - fi11 sa M. . !"�i814 ` \ 5' ..� ConcConcrerete detached e teln- garage 99. sq. 1t. ,`Q, B [[�� J 822 \ Total kroarvqu - 4919 sq. ft = SAX Y7 Pr I-erA- Area ' l _.� $ ' / ^ ( ��/07 \-9,N.._82,fi 1 NE CZAR. H 2394 sq. ». R 3 �l+.�q O6 \ t D,t, ;ay - 5214 mina =` .y I 6( T 1 I _ayfi1 87 Wa k - n4 aq. R _n 6q9 �^ I Bar warm = 14a eq. fr. V t r` e2 02 Scam dorm- ft 735 sa R. ' h 2 0 Concrete mange 1i15B ft " Concrete steno _48 sa . � ` ' B� Told ImPervlw 10.225 all. et --12.6x 3' / / /s�94a \ \ ��y N se, 1t i4 695 / / / / / 63 B 've,,�\ 1r , 694 67 82 7 lhT / .5 ga �V 832 / ;...� I `Ve\ � a 'l 7.0% PROPOSED DRIVE • \ �• /� \ s0 _ , � � ,.� ONS�R1G80NlJM1�. aF Nu � n \ -�- 99 i \C ELEV. 942.54 \ (� I `------- k-.-. --. -402 J,. , �` \ \\\67. • tfjQQ 669� OP \F \ \ \\ v •tx ¢ !!! ��`(C.Q�r�. 9 g't ELEV. 94�d95 \ \ I PR 840 DsiryO \\ 5\ - \� 5 _ ere 8 �2Q I / EL6g. .R TOP 0 40.10 $ 843 `I BENCHMARK A >µ \ i� TOP OF SPIKE- ` z EtEV. 931:88 z$q ey5s663 \$DEAL WELL\�1 y� \ OR61 NEW WELt, o - 6J1'��' TION TED / 66 `5 fvi851 -s 65 r 64fl 8W101 O. v/ W Nt s POR v N'�c 53 1' / ad cl 85 kp PROPOSEDIS 2 ab�f3 HOt/SE a FFE 933..7LA0) '057 lam.- DECK a^^'. amok -lack PORCH ; 860 •w058 33.0 / Baas / 931.8 931.1 / {' s f s REVISED 1/4/17 MOVED HOUSE BACK 10' REVISED.2Rlf7 ADDED DETACHED GARAGE c' xg37.} 931.�. 50' LAKE SETBACK 931: >: ... REVISED 2123117 CHANGED DETACHED GAR 85 931.5 REw13m b125l17 MOVED DETACHED GAR ; 937-.9 x I CERTIFlCJITION s886 I I hooey aenRy Dior tno pan. Axc6atu,u or report y 3042 _ SHR 9323x or.err mr a anwr dfi oat use .n a dwl :tens surveil u . d tK sod. ja'7N878t7.02 � _ t17.56� 862 J. KoOo. e.Na 26909 D le __ 6c.L _ SISII UND SURVEYING i-BOULDER RIPRAP 10775 Poppits Lane. Chaska, NN S5318 L4KE MINNETONKA =EDGE OF WATER 11/17/16 612-418.6828 WATER ELEV. 928.7 AS OF TlMS/18 �-OHW LIKE ELEV. 929.4 CHIN EEV. 92SA FT. (NGVD29, FROM ONR) JOB NO.: GF)1 HWL 930:5 FT. ON 9/7/02 (FROM ONR) PA SURVEY FOR Jaribo Ina rporated March 14 1977 Lot 17,Block 1, Encha:ited Park LEOfq Minm�tonka, Minni-sota. & AI&41 7Y .J C ¢ ¢ O y v+J rn �a N q q O W O M w O ¢1 ¢1 O .. u J ¢1 L J ¢1 r Q >> ¢1 t O o v'•- c .� '^ w c c J v u✓ E •— al ay � L c r o •� q v+ o r J r v q ¢J o— c c c q i ro L L ¢1 L ¢� •^ O 4- L ¢1 ¢1 U� N Y C L >> L O C ¢1 L q O u D D V u r V C L aJ L J •2 •^ V'• - ¢1 O O q ^4 ¢1 C L ¢� u O - ¢1 - O L L O L C W d q i LIJ N ¢� T S O O u d C L vt V V ¢� '^ C✓ C L L i r O 1-1 L q Vf In L C C� O i C N O p u L in u Y 0 •^ q V a O L N� u N V V C Q� C O •^ ✓N d L C O U u �n ¢1 ¢1 ¢! O �+ •^ L V O+ W C o ¢1 q 1 N VI M D 61 T ro T> Ol 0 ¢) N N u ro C t r > C V T 1] r a+ q L 0 Y -- C C O PO O� -¢1 YD 3 TL�-u N �+ C in •^' ry m.�.� � cm •e+J o L ro o•— v oL w e �n q L • .- L O C .- �� u Ord O � ¢1 N N ^ .- N •• 1J C u 'J Cu E O 'O �`•� N C 3 Q L O L 7 C L L r eT X •I- C� o N d L O ¢J u> L O L •.- O O+ C O v c ¢J ¢1 g E c ro ✓ u+ ¢J 3 0+ L V ¢J^ u v u ¢1 u .- roa V'wLgC'^00 Lb.1NN rLd L p �� fT N ¢1 q 3 0 +� c w vl E O [T - +•� q Y ¢1 '� '�- E q D >� L C L C L C •� ¢� X ¢� u r .00 •^ L [9 L C 7 L u u V ¢J O Ol u C q u +V ro C in F u L q L U N u N✓ tD V C O �- L O N o 61 Y '^ Y- V U� .. •^ L L ¢1 O L Ol � O Q�'� L i ro T O O-C+•' 61 aJ T V - ro � O O.- ¢1 V !n ¢1 C L U ¢J M ¢J O N C 3 C V 3 r ¢1 V q ¢1 L O1 L ¢1 N N c r cl c v «� q c E c �+ •— a c c «1 L E ID >� L u C .- C u C '� � N N ro N l'l c CJ 4- u q •^ � +1 L D J O N O O q ¢J L ¢1 t0 L C O L O C T O V !n � O O L L ro L Y L v V c c w d)fNo13NN� O Fn, K a O T L O VN v O ro J d W 11� P d loft / O r 1'13 n 0P 2 - s \j/ • my N •ri: , l 11 \ / � \ � old �v�� ,`•4 / - �\` � � r\ cli O r O : ter?, rVlg KD v/gib \ v°4 ((•Z \9L<► ` , cV Q ¢ �V I'S /—env Cn • o fit' ]./ ! \ p c , LL \F�w.er Sd / v i �,NoM.rbii: ova s rrn 1 t.'1� � `��i `• �Q'(:-_ 111\l. 4•� Q oo/ .lsoe•fl -- � ,,,°�� r �� , i 1 i�'!•No 1� \� �� elmLit �/ �' •r i /i /� Y �� OD zr- am f •ram �•' `, - (' `, �2/ f %O 1 , y •.D '4n- CO _ S ' s exhibit C j r:! FIRE LAH NO. 2 Plaule Late 36-1)1-)-- - y2--c1W11 53,25 ,-5� C� Plat of Survey for Shady Island Homeowners Association of Lot 17, Shady Island Hennepin County, Minnesota Certificate of Survey: I hereby certify that this is s true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of that part of Lot 17 lying Northeasterly of the Southwesterly 50 feet thereof, Shady Island. It does not purport to show improvements or encroachments. Scale: 1" = 40' Gordon R. Coffin Reg. 1C. 6064 Date : 5-9-75 Land Surveyor and Planner 0 . Iron marker Long Lake, Minnesota z 0 F a a U 4 8 N W �✓�d ` a W F� O III � Q W cx 1/�w Oz � 7 O � w � W 'All �o•a w ox �C\j� F U O m - a€g'"Zsee 5'3� z NI a & b Ci'„ rcvi o Z- 08 LL a iN 3 y o P'gzpa=a z g g w age �A;e a �" e„ _ _ �W mm cy J- .81. K d a \ \ N .41 Woa g <a8 ss��ri Vitl BZ9tiPo SOOUZI;[D'8„P"610f0b IOSP+>b��:N s17 35.__-� �l Z . \ P \ '� 41.7,._-� L 1 5'+ 1 story FrOme T Fs^d 3• Op 4 ' E a.4 12 16.5 czz ¢11 1, \e Iz CL "C•i � tR '�N � � � •dofiB z.c �� 1� , o� 3 v 5 m5 'p 9 d •`� 1oao� -1 E an y 44 O z0 �(Vy�. N �aV Y �A10 ��75pp $ .1. U.., �I �!L � m Pr..4 TN �i vI e o ; TE OF SURVEY v �U� R , 51 ow DIMMITDOBOSENSKI & SONS CONST. C� KL �, f: Q x�r,t• - b �'�c.ot-E: ate ;a` � c� • 17gNvm5*- /lCor1 o D4rlerlS N,vlL �� ;� _ � m �aa r~m►F � ti ��,gragGG GLOW SITE COP -, Iw iA ara E *Q Pr26r-T/�t1 -11 r t�'0x a .� VL riv x 40f 6 qyZ off. a�vo MIN � EzL r- � SILT- FENCE x(15�4) pENem5 PgPases 5fbr Erzv4m,1' x415C.9 FdNvM-S 61CrST,46 Spar E[.Ev mon1 � NErpNKA WILLIS l..L tS L,. �I L�IA(�D � E M r N crvlt-. ENr?W Erb AND c-.An10 SU)ZYEY0►- A K l'14 C6PT ZAL, AVENur- EgS'r $T. M(C1+A9Lj yt1uNI5-SarA 55376, 'rLLEQNoNE: 497- 3�i� I harPb,, eert7.iv th,)t th!] is =i. { Cll^ '321_? Cam`.'' r ')'"�.>f?*lt: a11.r-oy o.f t''•iF? hnur�i��rie<of t LOT �'h, EXCEPT ' 7ME F,A>"'FRLY k.IVE, FEi'" ':"iI 711,-nP, S}!ATJY 131,AND, LAKE fdlN3l�'"Oidt:A, HENP1!;r"`Ifd COUNTY,f+1If�"T �SC�Tr�. And of the to^at—top.q 'af <11.1 tuIIjinc, 3 th,7rPon, .,n:l all vi.,31blt? P-ncro--Clvr�,?'t'^t if any, from or on said land. A!- ^urveyed. by ma Shia, 24t}) day of :7u)y, 1.99?. wy v INY, MINA wNS1 Nam, too *9%, His w-22 NOW PIUM 'All nj MUM VIC its 0A -a CITY OF SHOREWOOD • ORDINANCE NO. 358 AN AMENDMENT TO SHOREWOOD CODE OF ORDINANCES SECTION 802 - SNOWMOBILES THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Section 802, Subdivision 2 of the City of Shorewood is hereby repealed and the following added in its place: 802.02: OPERATION GENERALLY: Subd. 1. WHERE OPERATION PERMITTED: A person may operate a snowmobile within the corporate limits of the City of Shorewood in only the following locations: a. Public waters as permitted by resolution of the LMCD or Shorewood City Council, but not closer than one hundred fifty feet (150') to the shoreline except when entering or exiting the public waters traveling in a line perpendicular to the shoreline. b. On private property with the express permission of the property owner. • c. On Right -of -Way subject to the limitations set forth in this section. d. Such other locations and times as designated by resolution of the City Council for supervised training. e. A person operating a snowmobile in any part of the City of Shorewood except as provided herein shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Subd. 2. No person shall operate a snowmobile upon the roadway of any street or highway except for the purpose of direct travel from the person's home to the closest destination where snowmobiling is permitted by the shortest possible route and then only if travel on the adjacent street or highway right-of-way is restricted because of developed yards or physical barriers. Subd. 3. Persons may operate a snowmobile on the street side of the plow ridge and avoid obstacles by going into the street, not onto the boulevard. While traveling on streets, snowmobiles shall drive in the direction of traffic. Subd. 4. No person shall operate a snowmobile on the LRT trail or within the LRT right-of- way. Subd. 5. A snowmobile may make a direct crossing of a street or highway provided: 0 a. The crossing is made at an angle of approximately ninety degrees (900) to the • direction of the street or highway and at a place where no obstruction prevents a quick and safe crossing. b. The snowmobile is brought to a complete stop before crossing the shoulder or main traveled way of the highway. c. The operator of the snowmobile must yield the right-of-way to all oncoming traffic. d. In crossing a divided street or highway, the crossing is made at an intersection of such street or highway with another public street or highway. e. The crossing is made with both front and rear lights are illuminated. Subd. 6. Speed Restrictions: Where no special hazard exists, the following speeds shall be lawful, and any speeds in excess shall be deemed unlawful. a. Ten (10) miles per hour on public property within the City; b. Ten (10) miles per hour when operated on any public waters within the City closer than one hundred fifty feet (150') to the shoreline; Subd.7. No snowmobile shall enter any uncontrolled intersection without making a • complete stop. The operator shall then yield the right-of-way to any vehicles or pedestrians. Subd. 8. Notwithstanding any prohibition in this Chapter, a snowmobile may be operated on a public thoroughfare in an emergency during the period of time when snow upon such thoroughfare renders travel by automobile impractical. Subd. 9. An operator shall bring the snowmobile to a stop and switch off the engine when flagged by a police officer or duly authorized uniformed snow patrol member. Section 2: Section 802, Subdivision 3 of the City of Shorewood is hereby repealed and the following added in its place: 802.03: MANNER OF OPERATION: Except as otherwise specifically permitted and authorized, it is unlawful for any person to operate a snowmobile within the limits of the City in the following manner: Subd. 1. At any place while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or narcotics or habit forming drugs. • Subd. 2. At a rate of speed greater than reasonable or proper under all the surrounding circumstances. Racing is prohibited except as may be specifically authorized as part of an organized event, which authorization shall be by pen -nit issued by the City Council. Maximum speed limits shall be set from time to time by Council resolution. Subd. 3. At any place in a careless, reckless, or negligent manner so as to endanger the person or property of another or to cause injury or damage thereto. Subd. 4. So as to tow any person or thing except through use of a rigid tow bar attached to the rear of the snowmobile. Subd. 5. When the noise level of the snowmobile exceeds seventy-eight (78) decibels on the A Scale at a distance of fifty feet (50') from the snowmobile. Subd. 6. At anytime within the City between the hours of eleven o'clock (11:00) P.M. and seven o'clock (7:00) A.M. on Friday and Saturday, and between the hours of ten o'clock (10:00) P.M. and seven o'clock (7:00) A.M. on Sunday through Thursday. Subd. 7. At any time between the first of April and the thirtieth of November. Subd. 8. Abreast of another snowmobile except when overtaking and passing another snowmobile. No passing shall be allowed if a pedestrian is within thirty feet (30') of • the snowmobile. Subd. 9.On the LRT Trail. Section 3: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and enter its passage and publication. 1999. ADOPTED by the City Council of the Cit Sh ewood t is 25th day of October, ATTEST: 1 JAM C. HURM, CITY ADMINISTRATOR C] MAYOR City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 Phone: 612 474 3236 Fax: 612 474 0128 Snowmobile Task FoRCOUX% i ' Report 1 of 2 Table of Contents ' 4 I. Executive Summary ................................................................................................ Summary of Findings.............................................................................................................4 ' Recommendations..................................................................................................... ........4 II. Introductions............................................................................................................... 5 ' Background...... ...................................................................................................................5 Purpose................................................................................................................................ 5 Objectives....... ...................................................................................•-•------........................5 TaskForce Members............................................................................................................6 ' Report and Recommendations..............................................................................................6 III. Task Force Process & Methodology........................................................................ 7 ' Guidelines and Objectives .............. ..................................................................................... .7 Identification of Policy Change Areas.....................................................................................8 ' Data Collection.....................................................................................................................8 PolicyFormulation................................................................................................................. 9 ' Rnal Recommendations and Report......................................................................................9 IV. Summary of Policy Area Recommendations........................................................10 A. Review of Policy Area Discussions and Alternatives ..........................................10 PCA1..........................................................................................................................11 PCA 2..........................................................................................................................11 ' PCA3..........................................................................................................................11 PCA4..........................................................................................................................12 ' PCA 5..........................................................................................................................13 PCA6..........................................................................................................................13 PCA7..........................................................................................................................14 PCA8..........................................................................................................................15 PCA9..........................................................................................................................16 PCA10.........................................................................................................................17 PCA11.........................................................................................................................17 PCA 12..............................................................................................................I..........18 ' PCA13..............................................................................................I........................1.19 PCA14.........................................................................................................................19 PCA15.........................................................................................................................20 PCA16.........................................................................................................................21 1996 Snowmobile Task Face Report 2 ' 6l27 96 IPCA 17.........................................................................................................................21 PCA18.........................................................................................................................21 ' PCA 19.................................................................. ......................................................21 . B. Proposed Implementation Plan.........................................................................23 ' Program 1: Safety Initiatives........................................................................................23 Program 2: Enforcement Actions.................................................................................24 Program 3: Comprehensive Education Program...........................................................24 ' Program 4: Comprehensive Sign Program...................................................................25 Program 5: Changes in Shorewood Ordinance .............................................................25 Program 6: Areas for Further Follow Up and Study.....................................................26 ' Program 7: Accountability and Oversight....................................................................27 V. Summary of Research Findings IVI. Appendix I I I 1996 Snowmobile Task Force Report 3 6,227,96 � Executive Summary The Shorewood Snowmobile Task Force was formed by City Council in June of 1995 and was charged with reviewing issues relating to the use of snowmobiles in the City of Shorewood. The Council asked the Task Force to gather and evaluate information to more clearly understand the ' nature and severity of snowmobile violations and concerns and to make recommendations «ith respect to a ban, or in the alternative, develop steps to allow snowmobiles to remain as a form of recreation and transportation within the City of Shorewood. 1 :.:.;::::> .... ...:.:..:.::....::. ....:.:..;. ......� ::`:'.:".mot:`{�..;.y' ,1 .: ::.:.... .: ... ::,.... ..: .. ... ....... ... .......... .. The Task Force collected and reviewed data on key issues: specifically ordinance violations. safety, resident perceptions and the need for limitations, restrictions and/or, if necessary a ban. The Task Force identified several key areas of concern. These included: • Safety: Concerns exist in the following areas: the mixed use of motorized vehicles and pedestrian activities on the Regional Trail (LRT); the use of the Timber Lane access and street boulevards by snowmobiles; and the need for more young riders to pass the required ' safety training course. • Education: Confusion and misinformation exist among residents, police, snowmobile owners and riders with respect to property rights, speed limits, right of way issues, prohibited riding areas, season dates, Shorewood laws and regulations and trespass laws. • Ordinances: the current City snowmobile ordinance is confusing and open to interpretation. ' It can be easily misunderstood and misapplied. • Enforcement: Citations are given for curfew, speed, and public property violations. Enforcement is difficult because of lack of manpower, proper equipment and the inability to identify and pursue the rider, allowing many violators to avoid apprehension. s R@CdQIE1S The Task Force recommends that a Comprehensive Snowmobile Program be put in place to ' address these issues. This program would develop strategies under the following categories: 1. Safety Initiatives 2. Enforcement Actions 3. Comprehensive Education Program ' 4. Comprehensive Sign Program 5. Changes in Shorewood Ordinances 6. Areas for Further Follow Up and Study ' 7. Accountability and Oversight If the recommendations as outlined in this program are adopted, it is the opinion of the Task Force that snowmobile usage can remain in Shorewood as a viable form of recreation and ' transportation for its residents. 1996 Srio%mobik Task Force RgxA 4 ' 6,27 96 � II. Introduction 1 1 In June of 1995 the Shorewood City Council passed a resolution (95-53) authorizing a Task Force to review issues regarding the use of snowmobiles in the City of Shorewood and on that portion of the Regional LRT that runs through it. (See Appendix G.) :•::+/.' ''•#:` 83�;`":'•:'::,-:.9i1: .rr.:f4 r t E ? '::5:.; !.. ::..: n:-,.rx,•.::E ;;•r S Me_ rr f .::r,.:•Y..•: .??� .fry:,'•':' ,;;;c ,,.;•: }::: •f 1 � So :.. }.. .. r: ... ;. f r^••ndx»:: r: �?... r!r.. .r .: .... o:f•..::::r}Yn. .,..,..c.. ... ,'.......... ........ nxr�:•rr;.::,rf::., :::}Y Y:GY:cv: Y: rfc;•.:c,•:::r• :::.:... n. The purpose of the Task Force as outlined by the Council resolution was to: ' • Investigate reports of City code violations by snowmobilers, • Make recommendations on w•ays to reduce violations, 1 • Implement an action plan to acquire accurate data on the number and seriousness of violations and complaints during the 1995-96 winter season, and 1 • Analyze the data and prepare recommendations regarding either a ban of snowmobiling or steps to improve the safety and perception of snowmobiling as an acceptable form of recreation and transportation in Shorewood. ' of r::: .::::: r.:::-. n...• .Y. 4n.?yifi\. .. 1•. :.}.}}:.Y:?.}}:. .rr .. n...................... ?:'}-: :.::: .:::::: :: v. n•{:;,r ...n.....::... r. xrr: xr:.:. -:.:::::...r:x�:x...n.:..:.:.xn.:n:vr...:.......:... rn.. rn.A:.:,.::::::i}•:::: ::,v:y.....jx:::r.).::}�}siiiYi:?isi>:i?'}:v:is is?::::::.,ri}}:}fl:n,:..n.::, ...... .�.:,::} .n..:::n.: i l.•: tThe :??n.+.?::::}Y'fr.•:'::xn n:•::.::.. .. ...� •Y;r..:.?iin.:..: Urr ::...x......................n.n.....................................................:....... objectives as outlined by the City Council resolution were to: • Define the issues and determine the extent of the problem. 1 • Analyze and report on the issues and problems regarding snowmobiling on the Regional LRT, City Right of Ways, City Streets and Private Property. 1 • Review possible strategies to reduce incidents of non-compliance with City Code and to acquire reliable data on such incidents, including but not limited to: 1 • additional or revised Snow Patrol activity: • use of radar or videotape-. 1 • additional signage, • educational programs, 1 • physical barriers, and • additional patrol by Hennepin County Water Patrol and Sheriff. and South Lake Police (SLMPSD). 1 1996 S,""m bile Task Fonx Re" $ ' 6i 27'96 Task Force Members ' Nine members were designated including one each from the Parks Commission and the Planning Commission, four resident members and three advisory members including the City Administrator, the Chief of Police and the head of the local Snow Patrol. The Task Force members are as follows: Co -Chairs: Bill Colopoulos (replaced Roxanne Martin as Co -Chair) ' Virginia Kolstad Voting Members: John Arnst Dana George Warren Peterson (replaced Troy Stottler) Troy Stottler (resigned January, 1996) Ingrid Schaff (resigned May 21, 1996) Alternates: Roxanne Martin (resigned as Co -Chair December 1996 but remained as ' an alternate) Laura Turgeon (replaced Ingrid Schaff as a voting member) ' Advisory Members: Rick Young, Chief of Police, SLMPSD Jim Hurm, City Administrator Dan Puzak, Shorewood Snow Patrol The Parks Commission was represented by Bill Colopoulos and Roxanne Martin. The Planning Commission was represented by Virginia Kolstad and Laura Turgeon. The following report discusses the process used by the Task Force, the review of data, ' alternatives proposed and recommendations made for each policy area, the proposed implementation plan and a summary of the research findings from the major areas of data collection. The report is divided into five sections. Section I Executive Summary Overview of findings and recommendations. ' Section II Introduction Review of background, purpose and Task Force structure. ' Section III Process & Methodology Overview of process used to identify key issues, collect data and develop recommendations. Section IV Summary of Policy Area A. Review of each Policy Area Recommendations discussion and conclusions. B. Proposed implementation plan developed from Policy Area recommendations. ' Section V Summary of Research A summary of each major research Findings area. 1996 Snen,.mohile Task Force Report 6 6/27,96 11 I I M. Task Force Process & Methodology The Task Force established a clear methodology for identifying issues and gathering data along with a well defined process for resolving concerns and evaluating information. A description of the process and methodology follows. ..... ....... ....: ..,r.......� The first meeting was held September 25, 1995. The group met 20 times as a full Task Force. In addition, two Sub -Task Force groups were formed during this period to address two specific topics: identifying data collection strategies and reviewing survey questions and methodology. Judy Marshik, a consultant with Research Quik, Inc., assisted the Task Force with developing a framework in which to organize information by identifying key policy issues for further study and outlining a data collection methodology to assure all issues were addressed in an unbiased fashion. She also provided technical expertise and analytical support on the survey, established meeting discussion guidelines to keep the group focused and facilitated the meetings to ensure all participants were heard. The Task Force, with Marshik's assistance, established the following: 1. Task Force Objectives: The Task Force reviewed City Council's direction (See Resolution 95-53 in Appendix G.) and identified four main purposes: a. Take recommendations to the City Council to reduce the number of snowmobile violations. b. Count and comment on the seriousness of snowmobile violations during the 1995-96 winter season. c. Make recommendations regarding banning snowmobiles in all or part of the City, including public property, or provide other alternatives which would permit snowmobiles, but with greater safety. d. Comment on the safety and compatibility of snowmobiles with other users, such as pedestrians or other types of vehicles, on the Regional Trail (LRT) and streets. 2. Discussion Guidelines: The Task Force established rules for Task Force discussions which limited debate and adhered to the agenda with special rules as needed and agreed upon by the members of the Task Force. Robert's Rules of Order were used to guide the meetings during the final policy analysis. 3. Research Considerations: The Task Force agreed that the final report should include: a. The studv of some other recreational activity to serve as a "control group" to keep the study of snowmobiles in perspective, b. A majority and minority opinion and rationale on every separate decision. and c. Objective data, when possible, to support any rationale for action. 1996 Snowmobile Task Foix Repot ' 6l27/96 idendiication of Polity Change Areas The Task Force identified and agreed upon the key policy areas to be addressed and identified ' questions for each area. A number of Task Force meetings were spent in a "brain storming" format to formulate these issues. Nineteen policy areas were identified representing key issues ' impacting or impacted by snowmobiles. Over one hundred and thirty questions were identified within the nineteen areas. For each question, the Task Force identified possible sources for obtaining accurate answers. The Task Force and City staff then set out to obtain the answers. A list of the policy areas and the questions for each one is included in Appendix E. ilafiacoo>t�. ' ; . The Task Force developed a data collection plan to answer questions raised in each Policy Area, determine the scope of the problem(s), and to address issues raised during the data collection process. Several methods of data collection were utilized. These are listed below. A summary of the findings is included in Section V, Summary of Research Findings. • Citizen survey. The Task Force, through a subgroup of the Task Force, worked with Judy Marshik to develop the citizen survey. A thirty-nine question survey was prepared and mailed to 2,463 households in Shorewood. (See Section V, #1 Survey summary. A ' companion binder to this report, the Citizen Survey Binder is also available.) • Agency research. City staff contacted many individuals in other agencies outside the City identified as potential sources of information. Those agency responses were reported back to the Task Force by City staff. (See Section V, #4 Agency research report.) ' • Interviews with key individuals:. The Task Force held interviews with the City Attorney, the City Planner, the Chief of Police, the head of the Shorewood Snow Patrol, the City Engineer and the City Administrator to obtain a better understanding of the issues and to Policy ' answer specific questions. (Responses are found in the Policy Area Binder under each Area.) • Survey of other cities. Sixteen other municipalities were contacted by Shorewood City staff and asked a series of questions relating to snowmobile use within their jurisdictions. A copy of relevant ordinances and rules were attained. Verbal and written reports were provided to the Task Force. (See Section V, #3 City research report summary. The actual report is in the Policy Area Binder.) ' • Trail monitoring. Snowmobile Task Force members observed snowmobile activity on the Regional Trail (LRT). At one meeting Task Force members rode in vehicles together along the LRT. In addition, for ten weeks, a one hour period per weekend was randomly selected for members of the Task Force to observe, at various hours of the day, activity on the LRT. Reports were completed by those observing the LRT activity. (See Section V, #5 Trail monitoring report. The actual report is in the Policy Area Binder.) • Police officer interviews. Questions were identified for the South Lake Minnetonka Public Safety Department (SLMPSD) Police Officers responsible for enforcing snowmobile laws. Consultant, Judy Marshik, conducted individual 30 interviews with the officers, 5 in person and 6 written, and provided a report to the Task Force. (See Section V. #6 Police interviews. ' Actual report is in Policy Area Binder.) . Police complaint findings: Chief Young (SLMPSD) provided information on the number of citations for the last two years for snowmobile ordinance violations Co-chair, Virginia Kolstad, worked with police staff to review and analyze telephone complaints (911) and property damage complaints made to the police department relating to snowmobiles during the 1995/96 winter season. (See Section V, #2 Police complaint findings. Complete report is in Policy Area Binder.) 19% Snowmobile Task Force Repoli 8 I Policy Fomut,adon ' The last five meetings of the Task Force consisted of reviewing all data collected for each of the nineteen policy areas. The discussions for each Policy Area are summarized in Section IV. A.. Review of Policy Area Discussions and Alternatives. The Task Force considered the concerns raised for each policy area, the data gathered and reviewed alternative methods for addressing the issues. Three Sub -Task Force committees were formed to develop recommendations for several Policy Areas: Noise (Policy Area 6), Speed (Policy Area 3), and Snowmobile Identification and Registration (Policy Area 4). The reports of these committees are included in Appendix C. ' In addition, the City formed a committee (the City Review Committee) which included Chief Young from the SLMPSD, City Planner Brad Nielson, City Engineer Larry Brown, City Administrator Jim Hurm, and Research Assistant Becky Tarvin, to review Task Force ' recommendations and provide suggestions and comments 9Jl Rew 10 ; fiC) 4F The Task Force developed a structured process to formulate the final recommendations. Brief general discussions allowed for consensus building and included input from advisory members. Recommendations from Task Force members followed in the form of motions. Discussion on the motions was limited to Task Force voting members. All discussion was carefully recorded in the minutes. The minutes for the April 25 through May 30 meetings are included in Appendix B. Task Force discussions centered on the data. Recommendations were approved by a majority of ' voting members voting affirmatively. (Minority opinions are presented with each policy area with the exception of Policy Area 15, Access and Policy Area 19, Ban which are provided in Appendix A.) ' The last two meetings focused on the form and content of the report to City Council. The report concisely summarizes the volumes of data acquired and categorizes the numerous recommendations in a meaningful format. _1 1996 Snowmobde Task Force Repcxt 6 27196 9 IV. Summary ofPolicy Area Recommendations A. Review o, f Pol icy Area Discussions & Alternatives Review of Data Many violators are not apprehended because they cannot be identified or caught. In many instances, the enforcement agency and/or the snowmobile operators are not familiar with the regulations. Current constraints to more effective enforcement include: ' • Lack of available manpower • Lack of adequate equipment i.e. radar, noise meters, snowmobiles, • Knowledge of officers regarding ordinances and snowmobiles regulations. ' There are a number of outside agencies that may be able to contribute to an enforcement effort (upon request by the City). These include: • Shorewood Snow Patrol, (Its members assist with Regional Trail issues. See Letter of Understanding in Appendix D.) • Hennepin Park Rangers • Hennepin County Sheriff/Water Patrol ' South Lake Minnetonka Public Safety Department (SLMPSD) • Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Conservation Officers. irI 7 L Conclusions & Recommendations It is the opinion of the Task Force that enforcement has to be tightened to ensure a reduction of violations by snowmobiles. The City Review Committee made several recommendations which were included with those of the Task Force. Concern was expressed about the effectiveness of the Shorewood Snow Patrol in meeting the requirements of the current Letter of Understanding and the need for a revised agreement clarifying their role and establishing clear accountability for monitoring their activities in the future. The final recommendations follow: I. Obtain agreement from outside agencies to assist, clarify roles, coordinate activities and more effectively utilize the resources of all of the above agencies. 2. Assign the current designated Shorewood police officer to snowmobiles during the winter and train a back-up officer to assist him or her. 3. Review, clarify and tighten the agreement with the Shorewood Snow Patrol and utilize them to supplement the officer's efforts and improve education of snowmobile operators. 4. Institute a "zero tolerance policy" with respect to impounding vehicles for curfew and all other violations where appropriate. 1996 Snownwbik Task Force Repot 6,2796 10 7 U ' S. Write a letter to the Chief Judge of Hennepin County to increase the fines for Snowmobile violations in Shorewood. ' 6. Obtain a snowmobile for the Shorewood police to improve their ability to apprehend violators and patrol the LRT. A motion made by Dana George and seconded by Warren Peterson to accept the t recommendations was passed unanimously by the Task Force. (6-0) See Appendix B May 23, 1996 minutes. f�03111 AkvA,2.'CUr1bw Review of Data ' Current curfew is from 11 PM to 7 AM. There were 10 citations given for curfew violations in 1995/96 (out of a total 27 snowmobile citations) and 5 in 1994/95 (out of 5 total citations). There were nine telephone (911) complaints out of a total 99 resident complaints. The current ' fine is $70 up from $55 in 1995 with the potential for impounding the vehicle. Conclusions and Recommendations ' This discussion focused on whether there should be changes in the current curfew and covered the current construction permit and policies (7 AM to 7 PM), concerns about a potential state law violation where a new road will run parallel to the LRT, disturbance caused by the late weeknight ' curfew time, and a comparison with the irritation level of barking dogs versus snowmobiles. Two motions were made. 1. That the City Attorney review Minnesota Statute 84.87 Subdivision 1(a): "Operations on streets and highways,...." In conjunction with the fact that a portion of the Southwest LRT will run parallel to a new street near Smithtown and Eureka Road, would be in conflict with the sunrise to sunset provision which requires that snowmobile headlights not be directed 1 towards oncoming traffic. John Arnst moved, Ingrid Schaff seconded. The motion was defeated 3-2 with I abstention. Co -Chair Colopoulos, Dana George and Warren Peterson voted against the motion as they did not feel that this was a curfew issue. Kolstad acting as chair did not vote on this issue. However, City staff has agreed to look into the issue further. ' 2. A motion made by Ingrid Schaff and seconded by John Arnst requested that the Task Force consider exploring curfew policy changes. This motion was defeated 4-2. Co -Chair Colopoulos, Dana George, Warren Peterson, and Co -Chair Kolstad did not feel there was ' enough evidence to support fiuther discussion or changes in this policy area. There was no further discussion of curfew as a topic. However, it was raised in conjunction with ' Policy Area 6, Noise Abatement and a subsequent recommendation was made at that time. See Appendix B, April 25, 1996 minutes. t � AEs' 3 Pp" LtY1t>l ' Review of Data Two different speed limits apply to snowmobiles in Shorewood: 10 MPH on Citv streets 20 MPH on the LRT. 1996 Snowmobile Task Force Report 11 ' 6.27- 96 I • There are many other applicable speed limits, i.e. DNR allows 50 MPH on public lands and waters, Victoria allows 50 MPH on the LRT, and Lake Minnetonka has several speed limit regulations depending on the distance from shore. ' • Education regarding these limits is poor. Survey results show that of the 215 snowmobile riders that responded only: ' 16% correctly identified the correct street speed limit, 43% correctly identified the correct LRT speed limit. 38% did not know or did not respond. • Enforcement is difficult because police officers admit they often cannot apprehend a fleeing ' snowmobile even when they have clocked them speeding with radar. There were two speeding citations in 1995/96 out of a total 27. • Current fines range from $70 to $142. ' Conclusions Recommendations and The Task Force expressed concern about the speeding problem after reviewing the following data. A list of recommendations was made and referred to both the City Review Committee and the Speed Sub -Task Force for review. The Speed Sub -Task Force summarized the issues and data and made several additional recommendations (See Appendix C) which are included below ' and in the Education Policy Area 12.. The final recommendations as submitted by all groups are as follows: • SLMPSD should keep speeding records for Park Commission review on an annual basis. Measurements would be included to evaluate compliance and continued LRT use. ' Leave current speed limit at 10 mph for streets and 20 mph for LRT. • A letter to Chief Judge of Hennepin County to raise fines. • Improve signage on the LRT and put up warnings where there are changes in speed limits i.e. from Victoria and in compliance the new Hennepin Count LRT permit rules. • Post signs at lake accesses. • Use a different color sign on streets to post snowmobile speed limit. • Improve education for riders on speed limits. ' • Tighten enforcement. Utilize radar and improve police officer education. • Establish a lake shore buffer zone of 150 feet from shore with 15 mph speed limit on designated lakes as required on Lake Minnetonka. (Request Chanhassen and Carver County ' to adopt same regulations on lakes partially within their boundaries.) • Encourage increased safety training for younger riders. A motion by Laura Turgeon with a second by Dana George called for accepting the above recommendations which included the Speed Sub -Task Force recommendations. The motion passed unanimously 6-0. See Appendix B minutes of April 25, May 11 and May 30 1996 meeting ..+eaSnowmobile. ' Review of Data A major problem for enforcement is the inability to identify snowmobiles and their riders. Snowmobile registration numbers are 1 and 7/8 inches high and are located in a 3 inch by 7 inch ' display area on the front of the machine. They can blend in with snowmobile markings. In addition, Survey results indicate that of the 45 respondents with riders under 16 years old, only 35% had taken the safety training and obtained their safety certificate. Conclusions and Recommendations It was the opinion of the Task Force that there could be additional measures put in place to improve both the identification of snowmobiles and their operators and improve compliance with ' the laws. However, the City has no authority to make regulations regarding the identification 1996 Snowmobile Task Form Repeat 12 ' 6/27,'96 CII �I �I and registration of snowmobiles and their operators within the City. Therefore, the Task Force developed a list of recommendations and formed a Sub -Task Force to re%iew and develop final recommendations for City Council approval to forward to the Department of Natural Resources for the State of Minnesota with a copy to the State of Minnesota Snowmobile Task Force for their consideration and further action. It is believed that adopting these recommendations would improve training and accountability for snowmobile operators and the ability of the police and other agencies to enforce the law. The recommendations were as follows: • Require that the registration numbers be at least 3 inches in height. • That a license plate be required for the back bumper of the snowmobile. • That evidence of insurance is required when a snowmobile is registered. • New snowmobiles have a designated area for the registration numbers that is free of decals and colored to allow numbers to be clearly visible. • Operators under 16 should not be allowed to drive a snowmobile of more than 300 ccs. • Require operators under 16 and unlicensed operators to complete the safety training program. • Require that the safety training certificate contain a photo of the individual. • Snowmobile violations should be charged against the individuals driving record with a potential for revocation. • Violations should be charged to both the registered owner and operator. This is a unanimous recommendation of the Task Force. The Identification Sub Task Force proposal is attached in Appendix C. See Appendix B, April 25, May 1, 1996 minutes. `! Pojt Review of Data The authority to permit and inspect snowmobiles belongs to the state. The City has no authority in this area. Conclusions and Recommendations ' The Task Force addressed two issues with respect to this policy areas: 1. A motion was made by Co -Chair Kolstad and seconded by Ingrid Schaff to add to the Registration recommendations that the State be asked to require insurance of snowmobiles ' when registering the snowmobile. The motion passed 6-0. This was added to the recommendations of the Identification Sub -Task Force in Policy Area 4. 2. A motion was made by Co -Chair Kolstad and seconded by John Annst to recommend that the City institute a permit procedure if snowmobile usage could be restricted to residents only. The motion passed unanimously 6-0. There was no further discussion regarding this policy area. See Appendix B, May 15, 1996 minutes. Polio 'C- Node 1 batemrrt. Review of Data The results of the research on this issue is as follows: • The current City ordinance adopts state regulations regarding equipment standards. The state requires that a snowmobile noise level be less than 78 decibels at a distance of 50 feet. • OSHA hearing requirements for industrial safety state that for a hearing violation to occur that decibel levels must be greater than 85 for 8 hours. • There is a relationship between speed and the amount of noise generated. 1996 Snowmobile Task Face Report 6.2796 13 ' Citv ordinance 502.03 established a standard of so many barks per minute as a violation for dogs. ' 911 complaints averaged approximately 4 per month for dogs and 1 per month for snowmobiles. • Survey results indicate that only 39% of 762 respondents felt that snowmobile noise was ' annoying in relation to other noises they were subjected to. Snowmobile noise ranked third (it tied with motorboats and jetskis) behind dogs and music/TV as bothersome noises. Conclusions and Recommendations ' The Task Force reviewed the noise issue in several meetings. A Noise Sub -Task Force was established to review the initial Task Force suggestions and have the City Review Committee for feasibility. A copy of the Sub Task Force Report is in Appendix C. The final recommendations of the Task Force follow: ' • Plant evergreens along LRT and designated streets to help reduce noise. • Change evening curfew to 10:00 PM Sunday through Thursday; but leave at 11PM Friday through Saturday. Do not change 7 AM. ' • Request the Chief Judge of Hennepin County to raise fines for curfew and equipment ordinance violations. • Request the City of Shorewood rent or purchase a noise decibel meter to determine compliance with required decibel level reading. • Establish a 150 foot buffer zone on designated lakes. A motion by Dana George and seconded by Warren Peterson to adopt the above ' recommendations passed unanimously 6-0. See Appendix B, April 25, May 11 and May 30, 1996 minutes. Pc .. } T. P ........... :...: ' Review of Data The following data was collected and discussed with respect to property damage. 911 complaints: Of over 200 property damage complaints in 1995 and early 1996 only 2 were for snowmobiles. ' Survey: 18% of 761 survey respondents indicated they sustained some property damage in the last two years. Of this, approximately 13% was to yards and vegetation. Conclusions and Recommendations ' Due to the low frequency and severity of property damage incidents, and the fact that property damage is specifically covered by ordinance regardless of cause, it was the opinion of the Task Force that the issue was currently being adequately addressed. A motion was made by Ingrid Schaff and seconded by John Arnst to address the Property Damage issue. The motion was defeated 4-2. The two minority votes felt there was evidence of property damage to streets and the LRT and that there should be additional discussion on this issue Co -Chair Colopoulos. Co -Chair Kolstad, Warren Peterson and Dana George voted against the motion as thev felt the issue did not need further attention. ' See Appendix B. May 1, 1996 minutes. 1996 SrimmoNe Task Force Report 14 Cu'27i96 Policy:Area:g: Safety. ' Re,view of Data The number of citations given in 1995/96 for safety related issues were: • Speed 2 Off LRT Operation 2 ' • No safety certificate 2 The number of 911 Complaints for safety related issues: • Speeding 42 • Harassment 3 • Stop sign 4 • Off LRT Operation 2 • Park 1 Survev Results • 54% of 766 respondents felt that Snowmobiles represented a safety hazard on the LRT ' • 70% of 765 respondents felt that alcohol use was a major contributor to careless operation of snowmobiles. • 59% (595) of 765 respondents were not comfortable in the presence of a snowmobile. • 54% of 762 respondents felt that underage operators did not have proper training. ' There have been injuries as a result of snowmobile use in Shorewood. The majority are to the riders themselves. The survey results compared injuries as follows: Snowmobiles 1% 770 respondents ' • Bicycles 4% 768 respondents • Pets 5% 765 respondents Conclusions and Recommendations The Task Force believes that safety is an issue. The primary area of concern is the mixed use of snowmobiles and pedestrians on the LRT. It was noted that current Grant -in -Aide rules do not ' allow funding when there is motorized and non -motorized mixed use on the LRT (See Polic} Area 9 and Appendix K). Further discussion regarding safety focused on improving educational awareness on the issue and providing additional signage on the LRT. ' The following recommendations in the form of motions were made to: 1. Consider the possibility of an alternate side trail along the LRT for walking and cross country skiing following a feasibility study by the City Engineer. (Laura Turgeon moved, ' Dana George seconded.) Passed Unanimously 6-0. Discussion points: The 4 foot side trail would be for pedestrians and cross country skiers. It would require the removal of small trees and brush, installation of culverts and some grading. This could be done fairly easily beside about 50% of the LRT and in Freeman Park without major landscaping or tree removal. 2. Offer broader recreational opportunities and because mixed -use (motorized and non - motorized) of the LRT has contributed to safety concerns, the Task Force commits to separating these uses by working toward a separate trail where feasible and creating a safer, practical alternative for non -snowmobile users who should also be advised of the risk when using the LRT. Motion by Dana George, Second by Warren Peterson. Motion passed 4-2. The purpose of this motion was to make a clear statement regarding Task Force concerns about the safety issues arising out of allowing motorized and pedestrian activities on the LRT. Dissenting votes were Laura Turgeon and John Arnst who wanted even stronger wording prohibiting any mixed use of the LRT because of concerns they had regarding the potential for injury in both mixed -use and the proximity of the side trail and noise issues. 1996 Snowmobile Task Force Report 15 6127i96 I 3. A recommendation was made to pass an ordinance requesting a reduced speed limit of 10 mph in a 30 foot buffer zone around a pedestrian on the LRT, however the pedestrian would also be required to move to the right to allow the snowmobile to pass. Motion by John Arnst, ' amended by Dana George, second by Laura Turgeon. The recommendation passed 5-1. ' The dissenting vote was Co -Chair Kolstad who indicated that the ordinance was too complex to be enforceable. Further discussion regarding safety focused on improving safety awareness through education, providing additional signage on the LRT, clarifying responsibility for enforcement in Cathcart Park and improving enforcement by the City of Shorewood. The following recommendations were made to address these issues: Implementation of a comprehensive sign program on the LRT (in compliance with Hennepin '0 County Permit rules) and in other areas where appropriate addressing safety issues and regulations. • Groom and patrol Freeman park to make it safe and viable for winter cross country skiers, hikers, and whoever wants to use it. • Clarify the responsibility of enforcement in Cathcart park, i.e. Chanhassen or SLMPSD. • Educate riders on the dates of the legal snowmobile season. • Educate the police force on LRT enforcement issues. • Investigate the use of the Hennepin Parks accident/incident reporting cards. • Educate all snowmobile owners and operators on pedestrian safety issues. • Put additional signs and warnings on any sections of the LRT that will remain mixed use and instructions to yield to pedestrians. It was moved by Laura Turgeon and seconded by Dana George to adopt the above ' recommendations. This motion was passed 6-0. See Appendix B, May 1 May 11, May 23 and May 30 1996 minutes ' _ .. ...... .. :,..... ' Review of Data There are two issues in this policy area. Grading: The first is actually changing or "grading" the LRT surface or roadbed. It would be costly to do this and would require the agreement of the Hennepin County Rail Authority and ' Hennepin Parks. ' Grooming: The LRT is currently groomed in the winter by the Southwest Trail Association. It is left bumpy to discourage high speeds by snowmobiles. This makes it difficult for walking and cross country skiing. It also creates more noise by snowmobiles. Grooming the LRT flat would make it easier for more people to use the LRT for cross country skiing and walking. There is a Grant -in -Aide nile against providing funds for the maintenance of LRTs where mixed use, motorized and non -motorized, is allowed. (See Appendix K.) The impact is that the SWTA ' could Iose funding -for LRT maintenance if mixed use continues to be allowed Conclusions and Recommendations With respect to the issue of grading, a motion was made by John Arnst and seconded by Warren 4-2. Peterson to not pursue further discussion on grading the LRT surface. The motion passed Dissenting votes were Dana George and Warren Peterson. They felt it was premature to come to that decision until all the areas had been reviewed. 1996 Sm«mobde Task Face Report 16 ' 6/27,'96 I 11 Grooming: There are two concerns about grooming flat. The first is that it encourages mixed -use of the LRT and second is the resulting potential loss of Grant -in -Aide Funds to the SWTA for grooming. The following recommendations were made in a motion by Warren Peterson and seconded by Dana George which passed unanimously 5-0. (Co -Chair Colopoulos was not in attendance.) 1. Promote LRT for mixed use. 2. Groom the LRT flat to allow for other uses and groom after every snow. 3. Find ways to fund grooming if Grant -in Aide Program dollars are lost. 4. Groom at the standard 11-12 foot trail width with a defined edge. 5. Try to retain a controlled base and have consideration for snow storage and damage to trees. 6. Improve the maintenance by the City crews on the streets at LRT crossings to prevent snow from encroaching on the street. See Appendix B, May 23, 1996 minutes. Polk AM. : Side�aiks This policy area was not considered by the Task Force as there are very few sidewalks in Shorewood. Review of Data The data related to this policy area which was reviewed and discussed by the Task Force is summarized below. • There is an ordinance in Hennepin County that defines trespass as entry onto private property without the express consent of the individual. Posting is not required. • The liability of an individual property owner if a trespasser were injured on their property arises out of a duty to protect an uninvited guest from known harm i.e. to be able to pass through the property safely. Thus a property owner could be responsible for injury to a trespasser if they are harmed by a known condition on the property i.e. a hidden deep hole. • 911 Complaints: 15 of 99 complaints were for trespass incidents. No citations were given in the last two years for trespass violations. • There is no consistency in the amount of right of way that the city has on an individuals property. It varies widely from zero to 16 feet or more. • Survev data shows that 4 1 % of 765 respondents reported that snowmobiles trespassed on their property. However, 23% of these were at the street edge of the property and could have been on the legal right of way. • 90% of 765 respondents stated they knew where their property boundaries were. • Over half or 55% of 750 respondents felt that snowmobiles should not be allowed to ride on the street boulevard. Conclusions and Recommendations The Task Force discussed several recommendations to address this issue which were referred to the City Review Committee. The final recommendations follow: • Educate police and riders of right of way for private property & LRT, parking and access to LRT from private property, the metro area trespass law, and wetlands ordinances. • Put up signage prohibiting snowmobiling in public wetlands. • Have trained individual from SLWSD or the City respond to trespass calls. • Establish a monitoring process of trespass violations and concerns. Develop a plan to assist residents with recurring problems. • Study parking and access alternatives to Lake Minnetonka. 1996 Snowmobile Task Focx Repot 17 6/27, 96 The motion by Laura Turgeon, seconded by John Arnst to adopt the above recommendations to be monitored by SLMPSD in conjunction with City staff was passed unanimously 6-0. ' See Appendix B, May 1, May 15 and May 30. 1996 minutes. 00 :.. t33t Re -view of Data • Safety Training is currently required for snowmobile rider ages 12-17. The training is 8 hours long, has a written exam and a riding performance evaluation. It is offered for a brief period of time in the fall. • New members of the Snow Patrol are trained by the SLMPSD. ' • The survey indicated confusion with respect to citizen and rider understanding of right of way laws, speed limits, property boundaries etc. • The survey questions showed that of 770 respondents, 40% encouraged more training for young riders and 27% encouraged more education on alcohol usage. Conclusions and Recommendations Many of the Task Force recommendations arose out of concerns in other policy areas. The Task ' Force felt that education was a very important component in addressing the concerns surrounding snowmobiling especially since it was one of the preferred alternatives by the survey respondents. A motion was made by Dana George and seconded by Warren Peterson to direct City staff to develop a comprehensive education plan as a coordinated effort with the Park Commission and outside agencies incorporating the listed recommendations. The motion passed unanimously 6-0. ENFORCEMENT: Educate officers on new ordinances. CURFEW: Educate riders on curfew times. SPEED LIMITS Educate residents, police, riders on speed limits on LRT, streets, buffer zones, boulevard. Improve availability of safety certificate training. REGISTRATIONAD: Improve requirements for safety training to all drivers without drivers license. PERMIT & INSPECTION: Use list of snowmobile registrations to update owners 1 annually on new laws, and riding guidelines. NOISE: Educate citizens on acceptable noise levels. Educate riders, police on noise requirements (decibels, ' equipment.) PROPERTY DAMAGE: Educate residentstofficers on right of way issues. Educate residents on reporting procedures. ' SAFETY Educate riders on dates of the snowmobile season. Educate officers on LRT snowmobile use issues. Educate residents on available methods of protection i.e. hay bales to deter trespass. ' Educate police on LRT enforcement issues. Educate owners, riders and residents on pedestrian safety zones and right of way issues. Educate riders on dangers of alcohol consumption Educate young riders on safety training. PROPERTY RIGHTS/ Educate police officers where right of ways end for ' TRESPASS: private property and LRT. Educate citizens and riders on same. Educate riders on wetlands. ' Educate on metro area trespass law. 1996 Snowmobile Task Force Report 18 6/27/96 ' SEASON: Educate police officers/riders on season. RIGHT OF WAY: Educate riders on Hiles i.e. direction, who has right of way, where they can ride. ' Educate riders to ride only on surface of LRT. ACCESS: Educate riders on legal lake accesses ' See Appendix B, May 23 and May 30, 1996 minutes. ft ` m 13 Si161AIC1 Wbtt2 SQdSQt1 Review of Data There is no single snowmobile season and therefore it is up to the City to determine when snowmobile riding would be legal in Shorewood during the winter. Hennepin Parks has approved snowmobile riding on the LRT from November 15 through March 31. The DNR and State Grant -in -Aide Program is December 1 through March 31. Most of the cities ended their ' season March 31. (See City research report summary.) There was some discussion supporting the more restrictive dates to ensure that the ground was frozen thus avoiding possible property damage. Conclusions and Recommendations A motion was made by Dana George and seconded by Warren Peterson that the legal season for snowmobiling in the City of Shorewood be designated as being from December 1 to March 31. The motion passed 5-1. Ingrid Schaff was the dissenting vote as she felt that this issue should ' not be decided until it was determined whether snowmobiles would continue to be allowed in Shorewood. ' See Appendix B, May 15, 1996 minutes. .}rf!'r iv•'::j,:i+v:J:; L'+ ) { ! J /% ...r. x: :::vi:}•iY:.}:n ��+� q}, f+K�Crht Vf�.:.T 'f:Y '�. yy� •}J :..?";: .:.. �. �ilu:::�: ::�:.: : .:. _:-:::4... ..- :.�::::: .:J.J:•J1I.::::i:^::±::: i........ ...: !J.::::i}}:v:: - .. Review of Data This policy area covered right of way from two perspectives: property rights and traffic rules. There are different interpretations of the ordinance regarding the legality of riding on the street ' boulevard on the public right of way. Survey results showed that 55% of 750 respondents said that snowmobiles should not be allowed ' on the street boulevard. There was confusion regarding the knowledge of traffic right of way laws. Conclusions and Recommendations ' The Task Force prepared a preliminary list of recommendations which were provided to the City Review Committee to review. There were differing views between the City Review Committee and the Task Force on the appropriate recommendations with respect to use of the boulevard and ' shoulders of the street. A motion made by Laura Turgeon and seconded by Dana George was passed unanimously 6-0 and stated the following: • Snowmobiles should ride on the street side of the plow ridge and avoid obstacles to going into the street, not the boulevard. (Separate motion —passed unanimously.) 1996 Snowmobile Task Force Report 19 6i27 96 Three additional recommendations were discussed: • Snowmobiles should ride in the direction of traffic. ' • If possible, provide a standard definition of street and LRT right of way for riders and property owners. • Educate riders/property owners on right of way issues. ' The motion to accept these recommendations was made by Laura Turgeon, seconded by John Artist and adopted unanimously. See Appendix B May 1, May 15 and May 30, 1996 minutes. ' Review of Data • There are two access points in Shorewood to Lake Minnetonka. The first is Crescent Beach where there is limited parking and where it is posted and legal to use as a snowmobile access ' point. The second is Timber Lane which is not a posted access but is technically legal due to overlapping right of ways. • Survey data, 71% of 180 rider respondents, indicated that to close the LRT would limit their access to either Carver Park and points west or Lake Minnetonka. • There are safety issues at the Timber Lane access resulting from the steep embankments and required road crossing. (See pictures, Appendix A.) Conclusions and Recommendations ' The Task Force discussion centered around the problems with the Timber Lane Access, the need for another lake access further west and the responsibility for enforcement of snowmobile ' regulations in Cathcart Park. A motion was made by Laura Turgeon and seconded by John Arnst to close the Timber Lane Access because of the safety concerns provided another access could be found. The motion failed 4-2. The dissenting votes, Kolstad, Colopoulos, George, and Peterson felt that the Timber Lane safety concerns could be addressed without having to close it and seek another access. The Minority Opinion on the Timber Lane Access and photographs of the access are contained in Appendix A. The following recommendations were made regarding snowmobile accesses. These were accepted by a motion made by Laura Turgeon and Dana George which passed 6-0. ' 1. The City Council should conduct a snowmobile traffic study to determine where locations of optimal access points may be based on actual traffic flow. 2. Shorewood needs to work with the DNR to get lake access to the west. ' 3. The Planning Commission needs to look at lake access for boats and snowmobiles. 4. The Timber Lane Access needs to be improved to allow for safer stopping before streets and only allowing one path to be taken. 5. Signage needs to be placed at the Timber Lane access —stop signs, safety, etc. ' 6. Signage needs to be placed on the LRT at the Timber Lane access requiring a stop be made. 7. The Timber Lane Access needs to be posted. 8. Timber Lane and other accesses need to be reviewed every few years for viability. ' 9. There needs to be better signage and barriers prohibiting snowmobile riding in the parks. See Appendix B, May 23, 1996 minutes. 1996 Snowmobile Task Force Report 20 ' 6'27 96 F, 11 1 I PolicyAr+ea 16. Use of Carbide Studs Review of Data The following data was reviewed by the Task Force. • Carbide studs are inserted into the snowmobile track to improve traction, turning and stopping on the sleds. They are legal and come as standard equipment on some snowmobiles. Banning studs would be difficult. • The evidence regarding property damage was inconclusive and was limited to potential street and driveway damage from the studs. Conclusions and Recommendations A motion was made by Ingrid Schaff, and seconded by Dana George to pass on this policy area as there was not enough evidence to show there is a problem. The motion passed 5-1. John Arnst was the dissenting vote and disagreed that the evidence of property damage from snowmobiles was inconclusive. See Appendix B, May 15, 1996 minutes. n_ ....::::.,.:...; . ...... � FS!•i}:;.r::,v;:� is r•�'ii})L:;:; �i;:}:i}::f^:^ii:�::;Y .. is ... .... .. . .. .,. .............n....... .. x.r. .....l.:. .... r... .............. ..... .: . . ... .. r Review of Data There is currently no revenue generated for the City from snowmobiles with the exception of fines which are part of a pool and not easily separated. The City has no authority to charge special permit fees or other revenue generating mechanisms. Conclusions and Recommendations There was no reason to continue discussions regarding this issues. A motion was made by Dana George and seconded by Warren Peterson to end discussion on this policy areas. The motion passed unanimously 6-0. See Appendix B, May 1, 1996 minutes. :. r:. This policy area was not considered by the Task Force as there is already a nuisance ordinance in effect which should cover this concern. Am i 0 U"ed Review of Data Survey Data: 51% of 731 respondents stated that snowmobiles should be allowed on the LRT whereas 49% opposed sno-,Nmobiles on the LRT. 28% of 770 respondents felt snowmobiles should be banned from Shorewood. 38% of 769 respondents opposed snowmobiles within the City limits. 34% of 770 respondents recommended restricting the areas where snowmobiles could be ridden in Shorewood. ' City Reports: Findings from the surveyed cities showed that of the sixteen cities surveyed only 2 had total usage restrictions. The other 14 had a variety of restrictions including designated streets, speed limits, etc. (See Section V, # 3 City research report summary.) 1996 Snowmobile Task Force Report 21 6/2796 ' Conclusions and Recommendations This was the final Policy Area to be reviewed by the Task Force. Points covered included the survey data, the ability of the City to implement Task Force recommendations and the concern ' about safety on the LRT. A motion by Laura Turgeon, seconded by John Amst recommended banning snoaznobiles in ' Shorewood. The motion failed 4-2. It was felt by Task Force members that the sentiment of Shorewood residents as reflected in the survey did not support the ban and that, if the City implemented the changes and programs recommended by the Task Force that snowmobile use in Shorewood could continue. Turgeon and Arnst represented the dissenting votes. Their Minority Opinion on the Ban is in Appendix A. ' A motion by Dana George, seconded by Warren Peterson, recommended continued limited use of snowmobiles in Shorewood emphasizing the following restrictions: banning snowmobiles from parks and other public areas; clarifying the ordinance with respect to prohibiting riding on the boulevard and limiting it to the shoulder of the road; and prohibiting the riding of snowmobiles in the City from April 1 to November 30. The motion passed unanimously 6-0. A motion made by John Arnst and seconded by Laura Turgeon, recommended amending the nuisance ordinance to provide specific restrictions for snowmobiles. The motion was defeated 5- ' 1 as the group felt the current nuisance ordinance was broad enough to cover most snowmobile situations. John Amst was the minority vote. ' See Appendix B, May 30, 1996 minutes. I 1996 Snowmobile Task Force Report 22 6127l96 N Summary ofPolicy Area Recommendations B. Proposed Implementation Plan The Task Force Recommendations can be categorized into seven program areas: Program 1: Safety Initiatives Program 2: Enforcement Actions Program 3: Comprehensive Education Program Program 4: Comprehensive Sign Program Program 5: Ordinance Revisions Program 6: Follow-up and Further Study Program 7: Accountability and Oversight The recommendations highlight key issues that the City must consider in weighing their responsibilities: social impact, economic considerations, political opinion, and safety considerations. It is the opinion of the Task Force that the recommendations contained in this report must be ' implemented if snowmobiles are to continue to be allowed in Shorewood. The recommendations address the key issues of concern as expressed by the residents of Shorewood, other communities and as determined by the members of the Task Force from a review of the data. ' Clear responsibility for implementing these programs and accountability for ongoing monitoring of snowmobile concerns and the effectiveness of the programs needs to be assigned. There ' should be an annual City Council review of the effectiveness of the programs and the agencies assigned with responsibility for them. The programs are as follows: i►KM :':::::y. ........... ... The primary safety concern arises out of the multiple forms of winter recreational use of the LRT: snowmobiles, walking, cross-country skiing, and snow -shoeing. This mix of motorized and pedestrian activities on the LRT raises a safety concern. Biking and walking are done during the majority of the year. The winter sports, including snowmobiling, can only be done following certain weather conditions. The Task Force strongly feels that a safe recreational environment presupposes the separation of ' snowmobiles from other winter recreational activities on the LRT and elsewhere and that this should be a primary objective of any initiatives taken. To reduce safety issues arising from mixed -use on the LRT. the Task Force recommends: • Grooming the LRT in Freeman Park for cross-country skiing in the winter time. 1996 Snowmobile Task Forcx Report 23 ' 627,96 • Approaching the Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority to request permission for the City to maintain a four foot groomed side trail off of the main bed of the LRT, in the ' areas where feasible, to allow cross-country skiers and snow-shoers an optional way to get to Freeman Park. • Consider an ordinance requiring snowmobiles to slow down to ten miles per hour within thirty feet of a pedestrian on the LRT. Pedestrian traffic should be required to move to the ' right to allow the snowmobile to pass. • The Police Department should begin patrol activities on the LRT and within Freeman Park once the trails are groomed for winter use. Put up additional warning signs on those portions of the LRT that remain mixed use. ' • Investigate the Incident Reporting Procedures with Hennepin Parks. In addition, the Task Force discussed improving the access from Lake Minnestonka to the LRT at Timber Lane with primary concerns being to improve the ability to stop prior to crossing the street and entering the LRT and to funnel snowmobile traffic on one path to increase safety and reduce damage to the area. Appropriate directional and stop signs needs to be implemented and maintained at this access 'y `y>>'. .. ;rr.t'�r'':.:?<:. '. r;: lY•YJ � , fr f(C fN. CN�C ' If snowmobiles are expected to reasonably and safely coexist in Shorewood with pedestrians and other modes of transportation, strict enforcement of the law is essential. A snowmobile rider needs to know that when entering in the City of Shorewood, if the law is broken, the chance of ' being ticketed, fined, and having the snowmobile impounded, is quite high. Clearly, providing for transportation and various recreational opportunities for Shorewood ' residents costs money. A program of strict enforcement, as described in Policy Area One, will require a commitment on the part of the City and the Police Department to: • Commit one police officer and a back up officer to monitor snowmobile activities during the snowmobile season. ' • Outfit the Shorewood police officer with a snowmobile and the appropriate equipment including radar and a noise decibel meter. • Additional training for the entire Police Department in snowmobile laws and regulations. • Institute a zero tolerance policy with respect to impounding vehicles for curfew and other appropriate violations. Involving the City Engineer and Public Works Department (or other trained City staff) in ' responding to trespass calls and in maintaining appropriate signage. The Police Department will need to obtain the commitment of, and coordinate enforcement efforts with other law enforcement agencies and the Snow Patrol. A significant presence on the LRT including intermittent speed "traps" at the entrances to Shorewood, and "hit squads" involving the various law enforcement agencies, should be important elements of the ' enforcement program. ' All snowmobile owners and riders, both resident and non-resident, need to be aware of the laws and regulations within Shorewood and of the strong enforcement program. In addition Shorewood residents need to be better informed of the law, their rights, assistance that may be ' available to them and the property right of way issues. Training for younger snowmobile riders needs to have a higher participation rate. Police officers need to be clearly versed on Shorewood regulations, the right of way laws and the new "zero tolerance' policy. 19% Snowmobile Task Face Report 24 6/27,'96 I j I 1� 11 A summary of the education recommendations for each police area is listed in Policy Area Twelve: Education. City staff and the Park Commission will need to participate in this program. They should consider designating an individual or committee to develop and implement a coordinated education program encompassing some of the following suggestions: A summary of the Shorewood snowmobile ordinance and "Zero Tolerance" Policy should be: • Sent to all registered owners. • Included in the fall newsletter, • Put on the Southwest snowmobile maps, • Printed in the local paper, • Put in flyers distributed by SWTA, • Placed in weatherproof boxes on the LRT, and • Reviewed annually with SLMPSD officers and the Snow Patrol. Safety Training Certification Classes could • Be offered at City Hall, • Have additional classes requested from DNR, and • Train SLMPSD officers to teach classes. Other Education activities could include: • Snow Patrol Training Programs annually on right of way, resident conccros/remedies etc. • Resident Rights awareness training programs covering trespass, right of way, LRT rules, noise and hay bales. • SLMPD officer training on property/trail right of way, trespass laws etc. P!'�F >Ei+ : �18If5lYFl f--fro re - To support the enforcement, safety and educational programs. a Comprehensive Sign Program should be developed. Accountability could be kept with the Park Commission with a Signage Implementation Group consisting of Public Works, Police staff, a representative of the Snow Patrol and the Park Commission. This signage plan should be comprehensive, it should be in compliance with the Hennepin Park permit rules for the LRT and it should include: • Specific locations for speed and directional signage on the LRT. • Warning signs and reduced speed zone signs at the entrances to the City. • Lake access signage at Timber Lane including stop signs at both the road and the LRT. • Signage on the mixed -use portion of the LRT with instructions to vield to pedestrians and for pedestrians to step to the right. • Signs prohibiting snowmobile riding in public wetlands. • Improved signage and barriers prohibiting snowmobile use in City parks. • Speed signs for snowmobiles on the street in a different color. tThe City has a specific snowmobile ordinance (Section 802 of the City Code, See Appendix F.) which has been amended a number of times over the years resulting in a number of inconsistencies and ambiguities. The ordinance needs to be clarified and simplified. The following areas should be specifically addressed. 1. Change the hours in which snowmobiles are allowed in the City to 7:00 AM through 10:00 PM, Sunday through Thursday, and 7:00 AM through 11:00 PM, Friday and Saturday. ' 2. Establish a 150 foot buffer zone on other lakes in the City (yet to be determined by City Council), as is done on Lake Minnetonka. 3. Designate a season of December 1 through March 31 for which snowmobile riding is allowed on public property in the City of Shorewood. 1996 Snowmobile Task Fo= Report 25 6/27 96 4. Designate that snowmobiles may drive on the street side of the plow ridge and avoid obstacles by going into the street, not onto the boulevard. ' 5. Snowmobiles should ride in the direction of traffic. 6. Provide a standard definition of street and LRT right of way. 7. Designate the Timber Lane area as a legal access to Lake Minnetonka. 8. Prohibit riding the "shoulder" of the LRT. 9. Clarify that snowmobiles are to stop upon entering the LRT. 10. The City should consider a separate ordinance for other winter uses of the LRT. 11. For snowmobile riding on the LRT and City street right-of-ways, there should be a definition as to who has the right of way, who should yield, etc. 12. Specifically identify where snowmobiles can ride, i.e. on LRT surface except to and from their property, if the property is adjacent to the LRT. 13. Specify that snowmobiles cannot ride on the side trail or park trail specifically designated for ' other uses. There should be a heavy fine for violations. 14. Add a new ordinance for pedestrian safety (See Program 2: Safety Initiatives.) The following is a list of individual initiatives and studies that have been recommended by the ' Task Force to address a variety of issues. • The City should approve and forward to the State of Minnesota a list of recommendations for action to improve identification and accountability of snowmobile owners and operators. (See Policy Area 4 and Appendix C, Report of Snowmobile Identification and Registration Sub -Task Force.). 1 • Request the Chief Judge of Hennepin County to raise fines for snowmobile violations in the City of Shorewood. In particular, curfew, speed and noise and equipment violators. • Clarify which agency is responsible for snowmobile regulations in Cathcart Park (within the t City of Chanhassen in Carver County). • Develop a monitoring process and plan to assist residents with reoccurring trespass violation problems. • Study parking and additional access alternatives to Lake Minnetonka. A snowmobile traffic be based ' study should be undertaken to determine where optimal access points may on actual traffic flow. • Work with the Department of Natural Resources to provide an additional Lake Minnetonka access, from the LRT to the west of Shorewood. The Planning Commission should study lake access issues for boats and snowmobiles. • The Timber Lane area access (if designated a legal access) and other accesses should be ' reviewed every few years for continued viability. • Provide better signage and barriers prohibiting snowmobiling in City parks. 1 • Consider working with LRT neighbors and the Regional Rail Authority to plant evergreen buffers in high noise areas along the LRT. 1996 Snw4nobile Task Form Re" 26 6/27P96 • Rent. lease or purchase a noise meter for the City of Shorewood to respond to noise complaints. ' Improve maintenance of streets and snow removal at LRT intersections. ' • Review grooming with respect to winter use of the LRT. Consider grooming for multiple use and after every snow. Groom the standard 11 to 12 foot width with a defined edge. Retain a controlled base. 11 I Program 7; AccQuniab lfy and Qversght There are a great number of specific tasks that need to be accomplished for these programs to be successful, involving a number of agencies and individuals. It is recommended that a designated body, perhaps the Park Commission, be responsible and accountable for implementation and oversight of the programs. The Commission, or a sub -group of the Commission, would work directly with the City Administrator, Police Department, and other City staff. For this purpose it is important that snowmobile records be kept by the Police Department regarding speeding and all other types of violations and analyzed by City Staff regularly (monthly) during the season. It is important that snowmobile riders be aware of Shorewood law through educational efforts and signage, and that a strong enforcement program be in place. Snowmobile riders need to be held responsible for the general compliance to the laws. The City of Shorewood needs to have a means of holding the Police Department and those who implement these programs accountable. 1996 Snowmobile Task Forme Report V 6i27i96 f V. Sumnimy ofResearch 1 Findings - ' 1. Survey summary. ' 2. Police complaintfindings ' 3. City research report summary. ' 4. Agency researrh report. ' 5. Trail monitoring report ' 6. Police interviews. 1 1 ' 1996 Smwmobiie Task Force Report 6, 26, 96 1 Snowmobile Task Force Final Report Survey Summary 1 Please see the companion binder to this report "A Summary of and Selected Analyses for A Survey ' Mailed to All Households Within Shorewood", prepared by Judy Marshik, Research Quik. The data collected was extensive and numerous cross -tab reports were developed for evaluation of data. Included in the companion report are the following items: Section Contents ' 1 Project Proposal 2 Executive Summary Report of Survey, written by Judy Marshik ' 3 Copy of Survey and Cover Letter 4 Copy of City Map, noting 9 zones to identify Shorewood residents 5 Cross -tab A: Analysis by the Nine City Zones of Householders Answers ' 6 Cross -tab B 1: Households with Riders Compared to Households without Riders Cross -tab B2: Households Close to Lakes/Trail Compared to Others ' 7 Cross -tab C1: Wintertime Trail Users on Trail with Snowmobiles Compared to Users with No Snowmobiles ' Cross -tab C2: Households Support Trail Usage by Snowmobiles Compared to Households Which Oppose Snowmobiles 8 Cross -tab D: Comparison of Households by the Type of Policy Changes ' They Recommended (6 areas) 9 Written Comments of Survey Respondents I 11 s T ($-II) & .Pf�opes�y Der qe r�s � Wloi ..... > '' Summary of 911 Complaints ' Each phone call to 911 is assigned to a police officer who responds and logs the call into the police computer data base. In addition to 911 complaints. the police also record their own ' observations and the results of any monitoring acitivities i.e. radar traps etc. The police made a conscientious effort this year to track snowmobile related complaints and to spend time monitoring the LRT. A brief srunmary of the data follows. ' A total of 167 records were logged from November 27, 1995 to March 26, 1996 from Shorewood. Of these • 99 were phone calls from residents ' • 54 were monitoring activities by the police • 14 were direct observations by the police. ' A total of 126 records were related to the LRT. • 61 were phone calls from residents • 54 were police monitoring ' • 11 were police observations. A total of 43 of the 99 resident phone calls came from 4 households. (The actual 911 computer report indicated that nearly 74% of the phone calls came from these households. Many were not identified as to caller on the police logs.) The type of complaint was broken down as follows: • Curfew complaints 13 • Speeding 45 • Trespass 15 ' The remainder of the complaints were either not identified as to type or were for a variety of violations including failure to stop at stopsigns, noise, riding in park. rude behavior, registration, property damage, and riding off trail. Property Damage Complaints n I There were over 200 property damage complaint logged during 1995 and 1996. Of these only 2 were related to snowmobiling and one was damage caused to someone's snowmobile by other snovi-mobilers. Police Violations 1995/96 Total of 27 violations all cities. • 10 for curfew • 5 for registrations • 2 for speeding • 2 for improper operations -off trail • 1 for operating on a sidewalk • 1 for operating without a safety certificate • 6 for parking in a city park. ' 1996 Snrntimobde Task Faux Report 62796 1994/95 Total of 5 violations • 5 for curfew- Snowmobile Task Force Final Report ' City Research Findings By direction from the Snowmobile Task Force, data was gathered from sixteen cities ' known to have recently dealt with a new snowmobile ordinance, or because of their proximity to the City of Shorewood. All cities contacted responded to the inquiry and included: ' Buffalo Long Lake Tonka Bay Chanhassen Minnetonka Victoria ' Chaska Mound Waconia Deephaven Orono Wayzata Excelsior Plymouth Lino Lakes Shoreview Recent Snowmobile Ordinance Activities ' Nine communities were not considering changing their ordinance in the next year. Of the seven remaining, Lino Lakes and Plymouth reviewed their ordinances by way of a task force during the 94-95 winter and wrote new, more restrictive ordinances. Lino Lakes desired a more enforceable ordinance. The result of Plymouth's process allowed for limited riding on certain major roadways and implemented a petitioning process for snowmobiles to have access on additional roadways by obtaining 85% approval of ' residents on a street in question before snowmobiling would be allowed. As of March 1996, one street had been added to Plymouth's acceptable roadways for riding. The City of Long Lake recently introduced and passed a snowmobile ban by Council action in March ' of 1996. Issues to be brought up by other cities within the next year included speed within City Limits and on lakes (Chanhassen, Chaska), restricted riding on private property for a "metro" ' community outside of the area (Buffalo - current statute does not make this an offense), and clarification of the intent of a snowmobiling ordinance (Minnetonka). A basic conclusion the researcher noted was cities tend to move from reliance solely on the restrictions prescribed in MN State Statute, to more restrictions increasing as the urbanization of a community grows until snowmobiling is not an acceptable recreational activity nor considered to be safe because of the number of violations compared to the ' number of snowmobile users within a given community. ' Ticketing and Enforcement The communities surveyed rely on their own public safety department, county sheriff, or ' the DNR Water Patrol for enforcement of snowmobile ordinance provisions. The City of Lino Lakes uses a saturation patrol, as well as neighborhood captains, to monitor their trail and inform the authorities of activities on the trail. An "out to get 'em'' approach by law ' enforcement officials is believed to be successful for adherence to local rules and is perceived to be well -respected by the snowmobiling community. Some actions for enforcement include impounding any sled in violation of snowmobile regulations, issuance of verbal warnings, or tag and release practices. DATA: PW/STF FINAL DOCS. 626/96 Tarvin I All cities agreed trying to identify the rider/offender for snowmobile enforcement is difficult. Because of the nature of the activity, thick clothing, goggles, helmets and other , outerwear tend to conceal a rider's identity. In addition, the required registration sticker on the snowmobile itself is seemingly small and difficult to read. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources regulates the registration decals and has oversight over their display requirements, as well as snowmobile driver identification requirements (carrying a current ' snowmobile registration card). In Shorewood, when citations are issued by officers for violations the offender would work with Hennepin County District Court to determine the exact amount of the imposed ' fine. The fines, classified as a misdemeanor by City Ordinance, could be as high as $700, but are generally between $50.00 and $75.00 per violation. Funds do return to the City general fund after a small court fee of $1.00 to $15.00 is held out for processing. This ' process is similar to other motor vehicle violations and all receipts are deposited into the general fund account Fine Revenue. None implement of the cities a licensing or permitting regulation. Minnesota State Statute Chapter 84.87 subdivision 3 allows a city to impose a fee, nor is a city allowed to require a snowmobile operator to possess a motor vehicle driver's license while operating a snowmobile. Snowmobile Identification I Most cities concur it is difficult to identify snowmobiles and their operators due to the size of the license as well as the amount of outerwear worn by riders. No cities responding , have experimented with other ways to identify snowmobilers riding within city limits. Damage from Snowmobiles I Generally no damage of significant value was determined to be reported within the cities ' participating in this study. Residents concerns and complaints have been filed, but actual damage did not seem apparent. Their is a concern regarding use of carbide studs on snowmobile skis and tracks. Options Considered regarding Snowmobile Usage Three options exist for cities to consider. A partial usage limitation would mean a city , would comply with the Minnesota State Statute Chapter 84 covering snowmobile operation. A city could enforce statute only, or as most cities do, further restrict based on their own communities needs. Restrictions range as follows: , Speed Curfew ' fines Riding areas (restrictions) lakes Trails ' Streets DATA: PW/STF FINAL DOCS. 6126196 Turvin t 11 11 I I I I I I A total usage restriction does not allow snowmobile riding within a city's limits, however may allow operation on private property and for ignition of the sled. Minnetonka and Lino Lakes currently have a total usage restriction (other than lakes). A "no key" ban would not allow any type of operation of a snowmobile within city limits, including ignition to drive a sled up onto a trailer nor for any other reason. No communities responding enforce this type of regulation. Suggestions for Banning Snowmobiles If a total ban of snowmobiles were to be considered by the City of Shorewood, it was generally recommended by other cities that the Council take action as opposed to requesting a citizen referendum to be the determining factor. Alternatives to a Ban Seven city respondents suggested better enforcement and education efforts as an alternative to banning snowmobiles altogether. One City representative suggested a snowmobile ban seems inevitable. Eight city contacts had no response or comment. Follow-up Areas to Original City Research Trail e No other communities interviewed were identified that promote for multi -use of motorized and non -motorized activities along the same trail. Dog and Bicycling Enforcement As related issues, each city was asked about enforcement of dog complaints and bicycling as a recreational activity. All communities had dog ordinances similar to Shorewood's and noted the difficulty of enforcement as well as numerous complaints. Bicycling is regulated by Minnesota State Statute Chapter 168C, and Chapter 169 Traffic Regulations. All communities reported no city ordinance pertaining to bicycles was available. Snowmobile Ordinance Each city participating in the survey submitted a copy of their current ordinance which is on file at City Hall. A complete report on the city research conducted, including each city's responses, is found in the Policy Area Binder used by the Snowmobile Task Force for policy development. This Binder is on file at Shorewood City Hall. DATA: PW/STF FINAL DOCS. 6/26/96 Tanvin CITY OF SHOREWOOD ' SNOWMOBILE TASK FORCE AGENCY RESEARCH I FINAL REPORT ' The Snowmobile Task Force identified nineteen policy change areas. Of those areas, many questions were directed to agencies for a response to the questions developed by the Task Force within those nineteen areas. This report contains the questions as determined by the Task Force and a summary of the agency response, unless quotations note an exact response based on a written submission 1 to the researcher. ' Policy Change Area One: Patroling 1-2 What constraints, if any, are placed on use of the trail by snowmobiles by your agency or group? ' 1-3 What are the current enforcement practices of your agency or group relative to these constraints? ' -How do you patrol for violations? -What do you do for any violation? ' The agencies that have enforcement authority over the trail during the winter snowmobiling season are: South Lake Public Safety Department - the key enforcement agency that will visually monitor snowmobile activity in Shorewood as well as respond to complaints called in. The Department does not have snowmobiles available ' to police the trail, but will respond by squad to investigate. (SLMPS) Southwest Trails Association - (1-2) "We work within the DNR guidelines ' found in the MINNESOTA TRAILS ASSISTANCE PROGRAM INSTRUCTION MANUAL (1989) regarding the seasonal opening and closing dates of snowmobile trails in the Grant -In -Aide program. We produce a detailed trail map of our area each year which lists specific ' information regarding curfews, speed limits, dangerous areas and other city restrictions. The City of Shorewood currently is marked on the map as having a 20 MPH speed limit and a Curfew of 11:00 pm - 7:00 am. The current SNO PATROL in Shorewood was organized by our organization. Monthly meetings are held on the last Tuesday of the month to discuss snowmobile issues in our area." (Southwest Trails Association) "The Southwest Trails Association - (1-3) SNO PATROL in Shorewood works with the City and local law enforcement. It acts independently of our organization at this time. We are not authorized to give out citations. In the ' Snowmobile Task Force Agency Research FINAL REPORT June 26, 1996 page 2 ' past we have contacted law enforcement via cellular phone when dealing with snowmobile violations. Educational material has also been used on the ' trail to alert snowmobilers to changing conditions." (Southwest Trails Association) Water Patrol - will enforce all local ordinances and state statutes pertaining ' to Lake Minnetonka. City ordinance restricts on -land enforcement by the Water Patrol. Snowmobiles are used by Patrol to pursue violators. "Chase" situations will only be undertaken for major offenses. (Water ' Patrol) Hennepin County Sheriff - will respond to complaints on trail. ' DNR Division of Enforcement will patrol upon request by the local unit of government. They have authority to patrol Grant -in -Aide snowmobile trails. (DNR, Division of Enforcement) ' Hennepin County Park Rangers - they have authority to police the trail, and upon request will do so. Otherwise they do not actively observe or patrol , the LRT in the winter (Nov. 15 - April 1). When monitoring the trail, Park Rangers stop every sled, review registration information and will warn or tag if violation has occurred. (Park Rangers) ' Snow Patrol - The snow patrol has no regulatory authority to place constraints. They do help inform. (Snow Patrol) , The DNR does not put any constraints on the use of the LRT by snowmobilers. (DNR, Trails and Waterways Division) ' No information was received from the Hennepin County Naturalists regarding this question. (Hennepin County Naturalists) Policy Change Area Three: Speed Limits ' 3-7 Where is the signage for speed limits posted on the state trail? (are there any decision rules followed to suggest placement) ' There were three speed limit signs showing 20 mph posted on the trail. Other signs posted include stop ahead warning, City of Shorewood , ordinance information signs, curfew signs, designated trail diamonds and permanent Hennepin Parks signs that are Stop Sign/No Motor Vehicle signs at each major intersection. (City Staffl ' "There are no specific guidelines found in the MINNESOTA TRAILS ASSISTANCE PROGRAM INSTRUCTION MANUAL. A copy of the COMMON TRAIL SIGN ORDER FORM is attached. This order is placed ' by our organization annually with the DNR when we submit our trail proposal for the next season. The cost of these signs is funded from the State Snowmobile Dedicated Account which is administered by the DNR. ' Snowmobile Task Force Agency Research FINAL REPORT June 26. 1996 page 3 Special signage has been purchased by SWTA from private vendors for ' signs that fall outside of the DNR's order form. Charitable gambling proceeds is one source of funding our group has used in the past to purchase signs. ' Signage placed on the LRT by SWTA such as STOP, STOP AHEAD, CAUTION & 20 MPH in the City of Shorewood has been vandalized by anti-snowmobiling interests on a regular basis. Our losses have been ' numerous. Vandalism in the past has been most noticeable in the middle of the 2.5 mile stretch of trail in Shorewood. Hennepin Parks took over control of the LRT. At that time they contracted to have new signs placed on the trail. Many of those signs were duplications of our existing snowmobile signage. It is thought that the contractor removed our signs and posts and placed the new signs in the exact same location. To date we have not been able to retrieve our materials. An inventory of the Hennepin Parks signs at the end of the snowmobile season may indicate that vandals are willing to leave those signs in place. If that is the case, then signage such as 20 MPH and other pertinent information signs might last longer on the trail if the City or Hennepin Parks placed the signs." (Southwest Trails Association) The DNR Law Enforcement Division issues the signs and requirements for sign placement. (DNR, Law Enforcement) There are no firm requirements for the posting of signs along trails. (DNR, Trails and Waterways) ' 3-8 What is considered a safe speed limit for a snowmobile when: -overtaking a pedestrian either on the trail or on a city street -overtaking another snowmobile on the trail ' The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Law Enforcement Division reported that a 50 mph is the speed limit set on public lands and waterways. Some cities choose to enforce a "no overtaking" policy, single -file, or 10 ' mph policies. A study done to review speed limits of snowmobilers was not discovered. ' (DNR, Law Enforcement) "There is no available information on this topic. A greater presence of the 20 MPH signs would be indicated. Most snowmobilers slow down when meeting pedestrians or oncoming traffic in shared trail conditions. New signs requesting traffic to slow down under those conditions may be indicated. Education would be the preferred choice. In addition, non - motorized users should be encouraged to wear reflective clothing and use some kind of lighting when using the trail. Multi -use ideas are for everyone. " (Southwest Trails Association) ' Snowmobile Task Force Agency Research FINAL REPORT June 26, 1996 page 4 , The State doesn't set speed limits on trails other than the blanket 50 mph upper limit. The local unit of government limits it on this trail (LRT in , Shorewood), as well as others. (DNR, Trails and Waterways) The Minnesota Safety Council does not work with snowmobiles and speed ' limit policies. (MN Safety Council) ' 3-9 How did the state arrive at the speed limits posted on the trail (why are they set the way they are)? ' The City of Shorewood has set speed limits at a speed not exceeding 10 mph on a street or highway, and not exceeding 20 mph on the Hiking and Biking Trail as a result of actions taken by the Park Commission and City Council during the past decade. (City Staf ) , The DNR Trails and Waterways Division responded to 3-8, above. (DNR, Trails and Waterways) , "SWTA abides by speed limits set by the City and the DNR. In other areas of our trail system we have utilized CAUTION, SLOW & YIELD signs to ' alert snowmobilers to changing trail conditions." (Southwest Trails Association) Policy --Change Area Four: Snowmobile Identification ' 4-1 How are snowmobiles currently identified? Snowmobiles are identified by their registration number. After registering a ' snowmobile, a number decal is issued (approximately 3" x 7"). A snowmobile manufacturer may provide a location to place the number decal or, if no space is provided, the decal should be placed on each side of the ' snowmobile on the upper half, forward of the handlebars in a visible location. If custom numbers and letters are used they must meet the following specifications: -1-7/8" high , -3/16" stroke width -Contrasting color of the snowmobile -In the English language , -Placed to read left to right The DNR issue validation decal must be placed to immediately follow your custom registration number. (DNR Manual "Minnesota Snowmobile, 95- 96 Season ") Snowmobile Task Force Agency Research FINAL REPORT June 26, 1996 ' page 5 4-2 Are there other effective ways to identify snowmobiles? ' There were no definitive responses from any individuals spoken to related to other effective alternatives to identifying snowmobiles at this time. (SLMPS, DNR Trails and Waterways, Water Patrol, DNR Law Enforcement, Hennepin Parks - Del Miller, Park Rangers, Carver County Sheriff, Southwest Trails Association) 4-5 How is the 14 - 18 age group certification currently enforced? ' When patroling, the policing agency (Hennepin Parks, South Lake Public Safety, Water Patrol, etc.) will enforce Minnesota State Statutes related to youth drivers. No special enforcement practices occur related specifically to ' youth drivers. (Snow Patrol, Water Patrol, SLMPS) "Local clubs in our organization put on Safety training classes in Chaska/Chanhassen and greater Carver County. There is a big demand for this service in the metro area between October and January each year. Community Education at one of the local Minnetonka schools would be well ' attended by interested families." (Southwest Trails Association) Policy Change Area Five: Permitting/Inspection by 5-4 How many snowmobiles are identified as being owned residents of Shorewood? ' In zip code 55331, 984 snowmobiles were registered for the 95 - 96 season (including all of zip code 55331 - Excelsior). 319 were Shorewood only. ' 229 households in Shorewood have registered snowmobiles. Of the 229 households, 30% (69 of 229) had more than one snowmobile registered during the 95-96 season. ' • Comparing west of Highway 7 and Excelsior to East of Highway 7 and Excelsior. ' • the West side has approximately 1,450 homes, or 56% • the West side has 74% (235 of 319) of the registered snowmobiles • the West side has 77% of the households with more than one registered ' snowmobile (53 of the 69 households) • the East side has approximately 1,150 homes, or 44% • the East side has 26% (84 of 319) of the registered snowmobiles • the East side has 23% (16 of 69) of the households with more than one registered snowmobile. (City Staffl 5-5 Snowmobile Task Force Agency Research FINAL REPORT June 26, 1996 page 6 Is the number of snowmobiles owned by Shorewood residents increasing or decreasing? The expense of obtaining this information was determined to be excessive at this time and will not be sought after. It may be determined by the Task Force to incur the expense after reviewing the available data for this season.(City Staff) The DNR Trails and Waterways Division does not know the actual number of snowmobiles registered in Shorewood specifically. A search of registrations would need to be done to get this data and they are not sure it can be done for historical basis. Recommended contacting the DNR License Bureau directly. (DNR, Trails and Waterways) Policy Change Area Six: Noise Abatement 6-1 6-2 6-4 For which activities other than snowmobiling is noise monitoring done within the city limits of Shorewood? Any complaints related to noise are followed, per City of Shorewood Code 502.03 Public Nuisances Affecting Peace and Safety, subd. 6 "All unnecessary noises and annoying vibrations." (City Staffl Are noise violations recorded separately from curfew and speed violations so that the Snowmobile Committee could get an estimate or count of these violations? Related to snowmobile noise, the reported violations are being tabulated as part of the Snowmobile Violations database, and will be reported when available. (SLMPS, City Staff conclusion) Is there any documented environmental impact from the noise made by snowmobiles? Reference was made to the report done in March 1986 ordered by the Shorewood Park & Recreation Committee, conducted by Southwest Trails Association. A copy is available in the Task Force Binder. (Southwest Trails Association) There are not any recent documented environmental impacts, to DNR Trails and Waterways knowledge. Apparently in the 1970's some research was done, but machines are quieter now than back in those times. (DNR Trails and Waterways) There is no documented environmental impact from the noise made by snowmobiles affecting an urban area. (DNR Trails and Waterways, Sierra Club, PCA, Audobon Society, Voyageurs National Park, Nature Conservancy, Friends of Boundary Waters Wilderness) The Sierra Club has joined Voyageurs National Park Association (a private, non-profit group, not the Park itself) on lawsuits and studies regarding I F I I Snowmobile Task Force Agency Research FINAL REPORT June 26. 1996 page 7 noise, most conclusively in the Yellowstone National Park. (Sierra Club, ' Voyageur's National Park Association) A recent ruling in the Boundary Waters Wilderness says there is no known impact from sound or pollution on wildlife, as well as a study relating to the ' impact on the wolf population in Voyageurs National Park. (Friends of Boundary Waters Wilderness) ' 6-5 How does snowmobile noise compare as a health hazard to loud cause hearing loss? other noises which may The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Commissioners Rule ' 6100.5700 subd. 4c clarifies the maximum noise produced by a snowmobile must be less than 78 decibels on the A scale at 50 feet. Noise production is regulated by the manufacturers through the product ' inspection and adherence review. In addition, manufacturers are required to meet Minnesota State Statutes 84.841, Mufflers, as follows: ' ...every snowmobile shall be equipped at all times with a muffler in good working order which blends the exhaust noise into the overall snowmobile noise and is in constant operation to prevent excessive or unusual noise. ' The exhaust system shall not emit or produce a sharp popping or crackling sound. This section does not apply to organized races or similar competitive events held on (1) private lands ... with permission ... (2) public lands ... with permission; or (3) other public lands ... with ... ' consent. (DNR Law Enforcement) ' Refer to noise study done in March 1986, as noted in answer 6-4. (Southwest Trails Association) A study on hearing loss related to snowmobile noise was not found. (DNR ' Law Enforcement, State Department of Health) Other agencies were contacted regarding noise related issues and had no response. (Hennepin County Park Rangers, Sierra Club, State Department ' of Health, OSHA, Water Patrol) ' Policy Change Area Seven: Property Damage 7-1 What constitutes property damage from a snowmobile? ' Karen Bowen, Hennepin Parks, discussed wetland issues and stated that as long as the crossed terrain by a snowmobiler is in a frozen, vegetative state, ' Hennepin Parks does not consider wetlands or other damage to occur because of snowmobiles riding off trails. She did clarify that ATV's pose a big problem because the land is not in a frozen, vegetative state. (Hennepin ' Parks) Snowmobile Task Force ' Agency Research FINAL REPORT June 26, 1996 page 8 ' Poliev Change Area Eight• Safe 8-8 Are the trails maintained in the winter time in such a way as to keep them safe for use by snowmobiles and others? What are the current maintenance and safety practices? "Past ' maintenance practices such as grooming has been modified over the past ten years to control traffic. In efforts to keep snowmobile speeds down, grooming the trail corridor in Shorewood has been reduced. Rough bumpy trails are less enjoyable and result in fewer snowmobilers using that ' portion of the trail system for casual riding. This leaves the trail open for individuals common to the area who are seeking the most direct access to Lake Minnetonka and the snowmobile trail system to the west of the City. ' Early season grooming of the 2.5 miles of trail in Shorewood has been restricted because of poor ice conditions to the west of the City. The , connecting trail system is often segmented. Our heavy equipment travels across areas of Lake Minnewashta and Lake Waconia." (Southwest Trails Association) ' Hennepin Parks does not do any winter maintenance. They allow each City with a LRT trail passage the opportunity to apply for a winter use permit to the Hennepin Park Board. (Hennepin Parks) 8-9 In your opinion, does the use of the trail by snowmobiles add ' or take away value for others who use the trail in the wintertime? Ken Schilling, from the Water Patrol, responded by saying this is a double ' edged issue. It is believed that snowmobiles have a right to use the trails along with other forms of recreation. Everyone needs to use courtesy and common sense so everyone can enjoy the trails. It is easier to walk on the , trails once snowmobiles have driven on them, but snowmobiles do create an uneven surface for cross-country skiing. If the snowmobile operator is responsible and within the law, this could be minimized. The trail does provide direct access to the lake for snowmobiles and does make it a , pleasurable experience to go from the lake to the trail system. (Water Patrol) ' Hennepin Parks said the use of trails, especially in the metro area, is a fairly volatile issue. There is a growing phenomenon that trail usage is on the increase, therefore the demand for trails throughout the metro area has ' increased. But, in areas that are `older" (suburbs similar to St. Louis Park, Richfield) there is some resistance to implementing trail plans. (Hennepin Parks, Del Miller) Recreational use is very important to most citizens in the metro area. The difficulty lies in determining what to do. (Hennepin Parks, Del Miller) ' "Snowmobilers in general are willing to share trails with non -motorized users. Often hikers, cross country skiers and dog sledders use the trails we I LJ' I 1 LJ Snowmobile Task Force Agency Research FINAL REPORT June 26, 1996 page 9 maintain because of the grooming, signage and trail connections we provide. We do have difficulty with non -motorized individuals who are not willing to share. They do not pay any appreciable user fees that go directly to trail maintenance. Snowmobilers pay a $10 registration fee per year along with dedicated unrefunded gas tax money to keep our trail systems open. With the exception of a $5 cross country ski pass, hikers, bikers and dog sledders are coming up short on their financial responsibility for the trails they use. (Southwest Trails Association) Policv Change Area Nine: Chanzing/Gradine the Trail NOTE: RELATED TO GRADING/GROOMING: The two words Grading and Grooming are not interchangeable, although some answers to this section may have been construed as such. GRADING generally refers to the actual modification of trail design, digging into the trail bed itself. GROOMING refers to the maintenance of the tread way, eliminating obstacles or clearing the tread way for its intended use. GROOMING activities would include brush removal, plowing, etc. 9-3 Are there other areas within City limits which provide for walking and cross-country skiing in the winter time other than the regional trail? There are no areas specifically groomed for winter activities, although residents may use the trails in Freeman Park and other park land for such purposes. (Park Commission) 9-5 How would the regional trail need to be graded differently for use in the winter time by snowmobilers, cross-country skiers, pedestrians or bikers? If different grading is desirable, how would you do it? At this time, the regional trail is not graded differently in Shorewood for use by snowmobilers, cross-country skiers, pedestrians or bikers. Alternative grading options can be considered by conducting a feasibility study that would include a complete determination of feasible alternatives for trail usage. If the City Council determines that a feasibility study is necessary, the City Engineer will be requested to produce a feasibility report, which could include the following: scope of the proposed project, design related issues, estimated costs, projected schedules, etc. (City Staff, based on input given by City Engineer) Any consideration of modifications to the trail would need to be discussed between the City of Shorewood, Hennepin Parks and the Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority (HCRRA). (City Staff, Larry Brown, Hennepin Parks - Del Miller, HCRRA) 9-6 9-7 9-8 Snowmobile Task Force t Agency Research FINAL REPORT June 26. 1996 page 10 ' There are four possible options that could be considered: 1. Leave a single tread way for multi -purpose trail use. ' 2. Add an entire new tread way, at the City of Shorewood's expense. Hennepin Parks and the Hennepin County Rail Road Authority would not ' be supportive of costs incurred for winter use modifications, at this time. 3. Modify the existing tread way by reducing the top of the trail, resulting ' in a wider trail. The trail is a trapezoid so that as you remove the top layers it will continue to widen. Two concerns would include soil and rock removal as well as disturbing the internal ballast. , 4. Accommodate a snowmobile trail alongside the existing tread way, possibly requiring some tree removal and/or limb removal. (Hennepin Parks, Del Miller) ' What types of permits would be needed for grading the regional trail in the winter? ' "SWTA currently has the permit to groom snowmobile trails on the LRT and in Carver Park. We bear the entire cost of grooming these trails used for snowmobiling." (Southwest Trails Association) ' A Winter Use pen -nit is obtained from Hennepin County to clarify the City's intent of trail use from Nov. 15 - April 1. ' Specifically related to "grading" the trail, a joint agreement between the City of Shorewood, Hennepin Parks and the Rail Authority would have to be ' made. Both Hennepin Parks and the Rail Authority have noted that any additional costs would probably not be supported because of their current "hands -off' policy for winter activities. , Is there a need to grade the regional trails in the winter to support the activities of running, walking, and cross-country ' skiing? It is the City's option to request use of the trail in the winter. Therefore, how it may be groomed is determined by the City upon approval of the ' winter use permit issued by Hennepin Parks. (Hennepin Parks) To actually grade the trail differently to accommodate different uses, please , see the answer to 9-5 above. What does it cost to grade for different uses and who would ' bear the cost? The City of Shorewood would bear the costs incurred for different grading I of the trail. ' Snowmobile Task Force Agency Research FINAL REPORT June 26, 1996 ' page 11 "We request $210 per mile in our yearly request to the DNR. Historically, ' all snowmobile trail requests are reduced because of inadequate funding from the DNR." (Southwest Trails Association) 9-9 What funding is currently available to cover the costs of ' grading the trail? What funding will be available next year for the same thing? ' If grading, resurfacing or designing a new trail or tread way on the LRT were considered, the inclusion of Hennepin Parks, the Hennepin County Rail Authority and the City of Shorewood in the decision -making process would be imperative. No funding is currently available, although the City of Shorewood may choose to fund a project related to grading the trail. ' The Southwest Trails Association estimated costs for grooming the trail from an estimated $210 per mile, and receive Grant -in -Aide funding to ' groom and maintain the trail. (This is not grading the trail, however.) "Matching federal money from Nathion Recreation Trail Fund is available ' for motorized/non-motorized projects. The program is authorized as part of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficacy Act of 1991 (ISTEA). Contact Dan Collins of the DNR (612)296-6048 for information for next year. (Southwest Trails Association) ' 9-10 If snowmobile traffic were permitted in selected zones of the City, would these planned zones conflict with the future ' planned changes for sidewalks and water installation? The City Engineer would have to evaluate each zone individually. ' NOTE: In response to grading of the LRT, DNR Trails and Waterways does not have direct management authority of the LRT trail and is not familiar with the current operations of it. It is unknown to this agency how things could ' be changed, or not changed, with respect to the trail. Hennepin Parks is understood to be the unit of government to discuss these options with. ' The DNR does operate the Luce Line State Trail, which is an old converted railroad grade. There are two tread ways, one for horseback riders and the other one for bikes, hikers, cross country skiing and snowmobiling. Use is not precluded from the main grade other than the Statute which created the trail does not allow snowmobiling in the first seven miles. Otherwise all uses are combined on one main trail throughout the year, with the exception of horseback riding. (DNR Trails and Waterways) Policy Change Area Eleven: Property Rights and Trespassing ' 11-5 Is there currently a perceived problem with trespass violations made by snowmobile riders on private property? I Snowmobile Task Force Agency Research FINAL REPORT June 26, 1996 page 12 Animal control has no knowledge of trespass problems such as "critter chasers." (Animal Control) The South Lake Minnetonka Public Safety Department has conveyed to the Snowmobile Task Force that the incidents that occur are not a large problem. (SLMPS) Policy Change Area Twelve: Education (Related to licensure) 12-1 What classes are currently offered on snowmobiling? Are there any other classes than those sponsored by the Water Patrol? Every year the Water Patrol teaches approximately 150 kids snowmobile safety. The Water Patrol has certified safety instructors that do the instruction and given the demand, this may increase. The Water Patrol also teaches their own deputies snowmobile training and enforcement, along with many police and sheriffs departments statewide on snowmobile enforcement. (Water Patrol) The Hennepin County Park Rangers train their public safety staff in the use and operation and trailering of snowmobile patrol vehicles. Included in this training is an annual review of pertinent statutes and local ordinances to educate the department as they patrol in four counties (Hennepin, Carver, Dakota, and Scott) and many local jurisdictions. This training is not offered to outside agencies. (Park Rangers) Youthful Operators Safety Training with local support is conducted by the DNR Division of Enforcement. The DNR Division of Enforcement does work with local communities to put on snowmobiling safety classes as well (DNR Trails and Waterways) "Refer to item 4-5." (Southwest Trails Association) 12-4 What is currently being done by the City of Shorewood or other to educate the general public on the rules and regulations which govern snowmobile use within City limits? The Snow Patrol will stop riders, distribute a trail map and request them to comply with City and State laws. (Snow Patrol) Other agencies conduct various "check points" to enforce as well as inform riders of snowmobile regulations. At this time, this type of monitoring is done on a random basis or in response to a request or complaint. (Hennepin County Sheriff, DNR Conservation Officer) "We produce the maps that the Shorewood Sno Patrol uses when they do trail education." (Southwest Trails Association) ' Snowmobile Task Force Agency Research FINAL REPORT June 26, 1996 ' page 13 12-5 How are these rules currently publicized? What use is made of signage, pamphlets, education and so on? (during the past year) The Snow Patrol utilizes all of the above - signs, pamphlets, and education. ' (Snow Patrol) The Southwest Trails Association produces maps that include various local regulation information. (Southwest Trails Association) The DNR publishes a brochure entitled "Snowmobile Safety" that is ' available for distribution. (DNR, Division of Enforcement) Other cities have made the brochures available at their City Hall. (City Staff) ' Policy Change Area Thirteen: Definition of a Season with a start and end date 13-1 Is there a formal snowmobile season with a start and end date? ' Hennepin Parks delineates the summer season as April 1 - November 15. Therefore the Snowmobile Season, on the LRT, is between November 15 and March 31, although snow conditions would dictate use. (Hennepin ' Parks, Del Miller) The Southwest Trails Association publicizes riding dates from December 1 - March 31. (Southwest Trails Association) Grant -in -aide trails (like the LRT) open December 1, or earlier if trail permit allows. (DNR, Trails and Waterways) 13 - 2 When does the signage and/or any other indications of a snowmobile season get posted? Southwest Trails Association generally will try to have signs up before the frost is in, around October. Some of the signs posted are ordered from the ' DNR related to Grant -in -Aide trail, other signs are obtained locally (speed limit signs, Shorewood restriction signs). (Southwest Trails Association) Hennepin Parks has signs that are posted for year-round use, such as the Stop Sign/No Motorized Vehicles sign at each intersection. (Hennepin Parks, Del Miller) ' Hennepin County also has posted street signs at each intersection with the trail noting LRT Trail Crossing. (City Staff) I Snowmobile Task Force t Agency Research FINAL REPORT June 26, , pagea 14 14 13-3 What might be the benefits to the City of Shorewood of ' defining a season for snowmobiles within City limits? No responses to this question were received. (Hennepin Parks, DNR Trails ' and Waterways) Policy Change Area Fourteen: Public Right of Way and Yielding ' Guidelines 14-6 Is there any regulation which provides for a "right of way" ' guidelines when a person is using a snowmobile on the regional trail? Minnesota State Statutes Chapter 84.81 - 84.911 clarify the right of way ' guidelines. MN Stat. 84.87 subd. 2(b) states "It shall be unlawful for any person to drive or operate any snowmobile in the following unsafe or harassing ways: in a careless, reckless or negligent manner so as to ' endanger the person or property of another or to cause injury or damage thereto; ...". (City Staff, also referred by DNR Trails and Waterways) ' 14-7 Referring to the City Engineer, based on your experience in installing City water, do you think the general public understands the Right of Way laws? How do they currently ' receive information on these laws when they have a question? The City Engineer did not comment on this question. , The Right of Way laws pertaining to snowmobiles in the City of Shorewood need to be reviewed, and if possible, rewritten for clearer understanding, as discussed with the Snowmobile Task Force at the ' February 22 Task Force Meeting. (City Planner) 14-9 What are the Right of Way laws for snowmobiles which use 1 roadways? Refer to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 84. ' Policy Change Area Fifteen: Viable Access to Lakes and Trails , 15-2 Which of the viable access points to lakes and trails within the City limits of Shorewood are the most frequently used? , No formal study has been done by the Snow Patrol to actually record usage at any of these access points. There is one main access point near Timber Lane from the trail to the lake that is used most. (Snow Patrol) , ' ' Snowmobile Task Force Agency Research FINAL REPORT June 26, 1996 page IS The Crescent Beach access point is the only fire lane allowing snowmobile ' traffic per City Code 1201.03, subd. 19, Fire Lanes, b.(2) Class 11(fire lanes) "may be used for ... snowmobile access during the winter ...". (City Planner) Karen Bowen, Hennepin Parks responded by stating that the Winter Use Permit clearly states that it is up to the community to "enforce, sign and ' maintain the trail." Therefore, when asked about crossing at the Timber Lane access point she stated it would be up to the City to evaluate. (Karen Bowen, Hennepin Parks) ' 15-3 What is the correct way to move your snowmobile from your home location to a viable access point for the regional trail or a lake? The Southwest Trails Association replied it is understood that within the City of Shorewood a rider may use the most direct route, staying on the right-of-way and avoiding any personal property lines. This is in compliance with Minnesota State Statute, Chapter 84. (Southwest Trails Association) 1 The Shorewood City Ordinance would also define snowmobile transport to include staying on the right-of-way, off of personal property, and not riding on the street (i.e. the asphalt surface). (City Staff) 15-4 How are the access points currently promoted to the general ' public? Are they displayed on maps? How would the public typically find out about this? ' The DNR requires new maps every year detailing trails available. The City of Shorewood is in the Southeast quadrant map available at the DNR. (DNR Division of Enforcement) ' In addition, the Southwest Trails Association has a map underwritten by local advertisers that is handed out for free at their "pit stop" where people stop and take a break. (Southwest Trails Association) The Shorewood Snow Patrol may assist in informing others about access points. (Snow Patrol) ' 15 - 5 Are the fire lanes being used as access lanes by any type of vehicle, including snowmobiles? If so, how. The Crescent Beach fire lane is the only Class 11 lane in Shorewood, therefore allowing snowmobiles on the lane. (City Planner) The Excelsior Fire Department does not regulate how the fire lanes are being used. They do review each location for accessibility. (Fire Marshall) 11 Snowmobile Task Force Agency Research FINAL REPORT June 26, 1996 page 16 "Fire lanes in the City of Tonka Bay along Brentwood Ave. give direct access to the LRT." (Southwest Trails Association) 15-6 Are viable access points currently signed? Viable access points are not signed by the City of Shorewood. (City Planner) Hennepin Parks stated that according the Winter Use Permit it is up to each community to sign the trail as needed for snowmobiling (specifically). (Hennepin Parks, Karen Bowen) 15-7 Is there currently public parking by the viable access points? There are a limited number of parking spaces at Crescent Beach. (City Planner) "Public parking also includes those individual who drive onto the lake and park their car and trailer." (Southwest Trails Association) Policy Change Area Sixteen:- Use of Carbide Studs on Snowmobiles 16-1 16-2 How much damage is reported on public or private roads which is caused by snowmobile studs? No damage has been reported to the DNR, reasoning is because snowmobile studs are generally used on fast racing machines. (DNR Division of Enforcement) The City of Shorewood and the Lake Minnetonka Public Safety Department has not seen damage reports related to carbide studs. (Public Works, SLMPS) "Traction products such as carbide studs and wear bars on skis are considered safety equipment by most snowmobilers who encounter icy trail conditions." (Southwest Trails Association) Are snowmobile studs legal throughout the state? Yes, they are Iegal throughout the state. (DNR Division of Enforcement) 16-3 Are there any studies which show the difference in safety for snowmobiles which use carbide studs and those that don't? Are studs safer? I I I ' Snowmobile Task Force Agency Research FINAL REPORT June 26. 1996 ' page 17 No studies have been conducted. It has not been determined that carbide ' studs are safer or not. (DNR Division of Enforcement, DNR Trails and Waterways, City Staf fi 16 - 5 What are the estimated costs incurred by the City for public property damage created by the use of snowmobile studs? ' There is no estimated cost. Street repairs are not accounted for individually (per incident) in the budget. (Public Works) ' Policy Change Area Seventeen: Source of Revenue for Snowmobile Related Costs ' 17-3 IS State grant -in -aide a source of revenue for snowmobile related costs? ' Yes, State grant-in-aid is available as appropriated from the Snowmobile Trail and Enforcement Account by the Minnesota State Legislature. (DNR Trails and Waterways) ' 17-6 What are the sources of revenue for trail administration and service? The Snowmobile Task Force would like to see an annual report of revenues broken out by source. For Hennepin Parks, who is currently administering trail service, the ' sources of revenue vary. They include general funds, Parks funds, park fees and other grant programs. ' To determine "trail only" fees by source of revenue would be labor- intensive as Hennepin Parks does not keep record of LRT-only expenses. If requested an estimated report could possibly be compiled. (Hennepin Parks, Karen Bowen) The State Grant -in -aide program is utilized by the Southwest Trails Association to obtain funding for trail maintenance to allow for snowmobile ' use. (DNR Trails and Waterways) "The DNR will not allow double grant appropriation for snowmobile trails. ' Currently, Hennepin Parks submits trail time and costs to SWTA for maintenance and repairs related to snowmobiling. Money availability is dependent on communicating projects in advance for budgeting. Trail work ' can not be performed prior to the State encumbering the funds for projects. Dead lines for project proposals in May 31st of each year." (Southwest Trails Association) I I Snowmobile Task Force ' Agency Research FINAL REPORT June 26, pagea 18 18 , Policy Change Area Nineteen: Limiting or Banning Snowmobiles within the it , 19-6 If a snowmobile ban for the City of Shorewood is to be seriously considered, what might be the best decision process? What are the advantages/disadvantages of: ' -having City Council make the decision -have the decision made by citizen referendum? A researcher from the League of Minnesota Cities noted that Shorewood, as ' a Statutory City Plan A, as opposed to a Home Rule Charter City, is not allowed to use a citizen referendum to make a final decision on policy implementation. The Task Force could request an advisory petition that the ' City Council could then consider for its necessary action related to snowmobiles. A Home Rule Charter City does not always have citizen referendum, but it may have a referendum provision if the Charter includes it. (League of MN Cities) ' "Future cooperation with SWTA and the insurability of the Sno Patrol under the SWTA insurance policy would be a moot point if snowmobiling was banned in the City." (Southwest Trails Association) , Other agencies were not queried on this question. (City Staffl I 11 Snowmobile Task Force Agency Research FINAL REPORT June 26, 1996 page 19 Agencies Participating in Research Agency Contact Name Phone/ Survey Other Animal Control Patrols Carrie and Dan Phone Audobon Society Valerie Phone Environment and education only City of Shorewood, Engineer Larry Brown In Person City of Shorewood, Park Commission Roxanne Martin, Chair Phone City of Shorewood, Planner Brad Nielsen In Person City of Shorewood, Public Works Larry Niccum In Person DNR Division of Enforcement Col. Leo Haseman, Director Phone DNR Division of Enforcement Lt_ B. Ransfer, Area Enforcement Supervisor Phone DNR, Grant -in -Aide Gordon Kimball Phone referred to Martha Reger DNR, Grant -in -Aide Martha Reger, Trails and Waterways Supervisor Both DNR, Marketing Sue Klecker Phone Excelsior Fire Department Cary Smith, Fire Marshall Phone Friends of Boundary Waters Wilderness Kevin Proescholdt Phone Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority Larry O'Dell Phone Hennepin County Sheriff - Water Patrol Sgt. Ken Schilling Both Hennepin Pads Rangers Ed Rudenberg, Director of Public Safety Both Hennepin Parks Del Miller Phone Hennepin Parks Karen Bowen, Director of Operations Both Hennepin Parks Mike Henry, Planning and Engineering Phone referred to Del Miller League of MN Cities Teresa Phone MN Safety Council Carol Bufton Phone MPCA Charlie Kennedy Phone referred to DNR Nature Conservancy Mary Waterhouse Phone referred to DNR Trails and Waterways OSHA Phone No applicable oversight Sierra Club Vicki Phone referred legal issues to Voyageurs Natt Park Association Snow Patrol Dan Puzak Both Southwest Trails Association Bill Kullberg Both Sent reply for acceptance of report 4/18196 Voyageurs National Park Association Jennifer Hunt Phone I I Snowmobile Task Force Final Report Trail Watch Reports Summary ' The members of the Snowmobile Task Force scheduled random observation times to walk the Southwest LRT trail. As agreed at the December 18 meeting, the trail was monitored by two Task Force members walking the trail for an hour at ten randomly selected times, between 10 a.m and 10 p.m., during this season (93-96). They took notes on trail usage during these monitoring walks. The observations varied from one walk to the next. However, it was consistently reported that snowmobile tracks were observed off the trail, approximately two-thirds of the snowmobilers were obeying the rules when observed by trail monitors, and the trail ' conditions varied greatly from very good to very poor. Specifically related to violations, 62 snowmobiles were observed either on the trail or in ' close enough proximity to render a good viewing. Of those snowmobiles observed, there were 26 occurences of probable violations by 22 different sleds. Other notations included viewing 8 pedestrians during the ten hours of trail walks, limited and outdated signs posted relating to snowmobiling, and numbers of perceived right-of- way violations. ' The Shorewood Snowmobile Task Force Policy Area binder contains a complete summary of the Trail Watch Reports. I Attached is a summary report written containing information per trail walk occurence. DATA: PW/STF FINAL ROCS. 6126196 Tarvin � v o 0 0 0 > lu o 0 0, v o. v u E p C -o c °� L 0 C ¢U u o _:c n. ^_. U � o s t. Ida °"Ey �o v c L s a ° .� u"� V y O oc T'G TV CL O 4) om CW— no nocua� �.5�on ri ru a� n�>E E 0 �E ^�° G V A .00 E u C O° ... cb V EO u '. — 5� L-0 . j` �'� a E�ounE mc us a •o 3 O 3 v =>;"qE cc E E°c E n a, ee C@ O 0 b0 ti �0�� Ofl O boo o11� o€� C c-- o�Eo O.U. '"��o .V.. ,Q ��''� C ti iii c u�omc O o c` u > O C 0 0 0 0 3 0 7 0 0 0 0� �00 c u o 0 Gpc c o t �'v, c u 00 c N3 WC C O> E - to y 7i O _ `ti c E 0 0 FCFC ;� O Oci v O Opp 0 0 O° C ti u V O> a U U � .=U E tiU AU�� r U ��., U y 3 0 U (-0)U•a S v o � o m � > o O � � E O y L 0 i aJ O O y •O W N y 00 c 0 ca o 0 o cn ai o3�oz � v a> u 00E4 ca o� c0 c0 E E CL i77oCR- o > E 00 z E t — A _ J I I 7 I F� The City of Shorewood Police Officer Interviews/Surveys Executive Summary Police Officer Interviews Snowmobile Task Force Executive Summary Report Background One of the research projects sponsored by the Snowmobile Task Force was an interview of or survey of the police officers which work within Shorewood City limits. The questions for the interview were generated by the Snowmobile Task Force. The interviews were conducted in April. Five officers were interviewed face-to-face in interviews lasting about 30 minutes. The other six officers were given an interview guide and asked to write in the answers to the interview questions. A detailed summary of all of the officers responses and answers was prepared in a separate report. II. Questions in the Interview ' The police officers were asked questions pertaining to snowmobiling. The questions can be divided into categories as follows: • Trespass and property damage from snowmobiles • Snowmobile safety issues and accidents in which a snowmobile was involved • Use of lake and trail access lanes, both legal and illegal, by ' snowmobiles Personal experience in enforcing the laws for snowmobiles • Cooperation with the Snow Patrol ' Understanding of snowmobile season Handling and verifying citizen complaints Findings for each of these areas is briefly summarized in the remainder of this report. tIII. Trespass and Property Damage from Snowmobiles Officers were asked to explain the trespass law which governs recreational ' vehicles in the seven county area. They all knew that snowmobiles were prohibited from riding on anyone's private property without the express permission of the owner. Almost all of the officers had been called to investigate a possible trespass violation within the past five years. Some had been called as many as five -ten times. They reported that they were likely to get repeat complaints from property ' owners whose homes were close to the Regional Trail, from homes on Eureka Road and Smithtown and Howard's Point Road. ' A majority of the officers also had been called to investigate property damage caused by snowmobiles. According to the officers, some reports of damage could not be processed because the damage occurred on public rights of way. ' Prepared by: Judith Marshik. Research Quik. Inc.© June 13, 1996 The City of Shorewood Police Officer Interviews/Surveys Executive Summary Other reports of damage were not substantiated. Although snowmobile tracks were present, there was no apparent damage. Officers reported that many of these complaints were more related to trespass violations than they were to property damage. Others could not be prosecuted because the act of trespass or damage had no witnesses. IV. Snowmobile Safety Issues including Accidents Only about 1 /3 of the officers could recall an accident in which a snowmobile had been involved occurring within Shorewood City limits within the past five years. Several accidents involved a snowmobile running into a tree or some standing object. In one accident, a car was involved. In yet another, an officer remembered a skier being struck by a snowmobile. When officers were asked if citizens ever expressed fear for their personal safety as a result of close contact with a snowmobile, more than half said yes. Each of these was able to tell stories about citizens expression of fear of snowmobiles. Almost all of these stories involved joint usage of the Regional Trail by skiers/walkers and snowmobiles. V. Use of Lake and Trail Access Officers reported that the legal access points to the lakes and Regional Trail which are used the most by snowmobilers are Timber Lane and Crescent Beach. Snowmobilers are also likely to other access points located at Boulder Bridge (close to the lake), Howard's Point Marina, Birch Bluff Road and Excelsior Commons area. Some snowmobilers drive into Tonka Bay and enter via the Bay Street Fire Lane. The access lane used the most, in the opinion of the officers, is Timber Lane. VI. Officer's Experiences in Law Enforcement with Snowmobiles When officers were asked if they had ever impounded a snowmobile because of a law violation, almost all answered no. Four of the eleven had impounded vehicles. Reasons for impounding a vehicle ranged from curfew violations to driving while under the influence of alcohol. Officers were also asked about their experiences with younger riders and their compliance with laws requiring certification to ride a snowmobile. More than 2/3 of the officers had checked younger riders to see if they were bearing the proper credentials for riding a snowmobile. They reported that it was very rare when they found an infraction of this law. Officers stated that between 80-99% of these riders were legal. Each officer was asked to review a list of state laws governing snowmobiles. They were asked for which infractions they had personally issued citations. Prepared by: Judith Marshik, Research Quik, Inc.© June 13, 1996 I d d H F The City of Shorewood Police Officer Interviews/Surveys Executive Summary Officers reported issuing traffic citations to snowmobiles for the following offenses: • absence of proper registration • failure to display a valid registration • operating while under the influence of drugs or alcohol • on the trail disobeying a posted traffic sign • operating vehicles on public roadways or shoulders • speeding • curfew violations • noise (muffler) violations • operating without a headlight or tail light • driving on DNR lands illegally • failure to stop when signaled • operating a snowmobile against traffic in the dark • uncertified juvenile operators Although there were some state laws which apparently have not been violated within Shorewood, one officer pointed out that some of these were written for rural areas and simply did not apply. Other officers pointed out that some laws were very difficult to enforce because the perpetrator would flee and the officer would be unable to pursue them. Another enforcement problem is that the snowmobile rider may be gone by the time the officer follows up on a citizen complaint. One officer said that speeders were especially hard to ticket because finding spots to monitor the Trail in a police vehicle were difficult. VII. Working with the Snow Patrol Officers reported a variety of experiences and perceptions about cooperation with the Snow Patrol. Some had never called the Snow Patrol, some gave out the number for citizens to call on their own and still others called the Snow Patrol and even went out with the Patrol together to a citizen's home. There seemed to be some ambiguity about the appropriate role of the Patrol in conjunction with the Police. Vill. Understanding of the Snowmobile Season None of the officers was aware that there was an official season with start and end dates for the use of the Regional Trail. IX. Verifying Citizen Complaints Officers were asked if they had ever received complaints from citizens which did not appear to agree with their observations of snowmobilers' actual behavior. Almost all reported experiences in which they had been monitoring the Trail at the same time a complaint had come in and had been unable to verify the complaint. Some told detailed stories of how these complaints would have been impossible for the police officer to have missed because of the timing and their direct observation of the Trail. These unverifiable complaints might be explained by the fact that some callers wait too long to call in their concerns. Prepared by: Judith Marshik, Research Quik, Inc.© June 13, 1996 I Li I t Appendix A. Minority Opinions • Timber Lane Access Opinion • Timber Lane Access Pictures • Ban or Limited Use B. Minutes 4/25/96 to 5/30196 C. Subgroup Reports • Snowmobile Identification &. Registration • Noise • Speed ' D. Shorewood Snow Patrol Letter of Understanding. E. Policy Area Binder Table of Contents & Policy Area Questions F. Shorewood Snowmobile Ordinance (Section 802 of the City Code) ' G. Council Resolution 95-53, June 1995 H. Blank Copy of Snowmobile Resident Survey and Map I. Table of Contents —Ingrid Schaaf s Research Binder J. Table of Contents —Main Survey Binder K. Grant in Aide Program t t 1996 Snowniobile Task Force Report 6, 27196 MinoEity Opinion - Policy Area 15: Timber Lane Access ' Ordinance states that "no snowmobile shall enter any uncontrolled intersection without making a complete stop and that the crossing is made at an angle of approximately ninety degrees to the direction of the street or highway and at a place where no obstruction prevents a quick and safe crossing". It is our opinion that while Timber Lane is not considered illesal it cannot be assuredly maintained in such a manner that would make usage by snowmobiles legal. tProblems: • The Timber Lane site consists of very steep topography which on approach from Lake ' Minnetonka affords poor sight lines for the riders. It was stated during Task Force discussion that riders, unless very experienced, are unable to come to a complete stop at the intersection. In order to correct this situation and bring the access into compliance, Public Works will be required to pay special attention to this area ' during their plowing efforts, by packing additional snow, to ensure there is sufficient space for riders to comply with this regulation. The problem will return to its current state of noncompliance as the season progresses; the snow melts and additional snow is not available to correct the problem at the intersection. • Timber Lane, while being one of the more actively used Lake accesses is not signed or denoted on the SWTA map of the area. In the past, the City has not called attention to nor have they expressed the desire to identify specific locations within the community as snowmobile access points. To deem Timber Lane as a legal access will in turn result in the City becoming responsible for signing the area, which when done could result in it being added to the map currently distributed to snowmobilers throughout area and in all likelihood increase the traffic in this neighborhood. • Even though the street right of way extends into the water which lends itself to public use, it currently is not suitable for other uses such as boat launching. In our opinion it would not be in the best interests of the community as a whole to have public land "advertised" for selective uses. Crescent Beach is our only legal access for snowmobile use which was the result of a fire lane study. • In order to accommodate the potential increase in snowmobile traffic to and from the Lake once it is signed and made public the City would have to ensure that the traffic would be funneled properly through by the use of hay bales or fencing to help reduce the adverse effects on the properties in the area. This should be done whether the access is publicly annotated or not and if snowmobiling is continued within the City. • If all the recommendations proposed by the Task Force are adopted, in an attempt to bring the access into conformity, attention needs to be paid to the potential adverse effects to the residents of this area (Zone 5 in the survey): Zone 5 Survey Responses: • 54% of 110 respondents in this area feel snowmobiles should not be allowed to be on the boulevards • 43% of 114 respondents in this area find snowmobile noise very to somewhat annoying • 58% of 112 respondents in this area are uncomfortable in the presence of snowmobiles • 50% of I I I respondents in this area feel snowmobiles present a safety hazard on the trail Based on these survey results the area is already quite sensitive to snowmobile use in their area. 1996 Snowmobile Task Fanx Report 627/96 Conclusion: ' If you interpret 'viable" as being able to provide practicable, permanent conditions so as to permit continued existence of the Timber Lane access, we have no data that would support the conclusion that these changes will accomplish this. While funneling, fencing, signing and additional snow may be viewed as mitigative measures for this area, it should not be stated that these measures will make the Timber Lane access "viable". Currently only one snowmobile can come to a complete stop at a time before crossing, unless additional snow is packed near the street. The inability to maintain safe conditions is the same as permitting violations and illegal actions, which would be unenforceable because the City cannot maintain the conditions to make the Timber Lane access safe and enforceable. L I 1 I 1 1996 Snowmobile Taste Force Report 6r27 96 ail'.: I .. r 1 �r� r the ! :_ • - f' 4 '.1 or -�NAM :� ;iV1 " :. A. Wimni y pploQtt: Policy Ama i 9: Bit` or Utf71W Use ' Snowmobile Ban: Numerous recommendations have been made that may mitigate the concerns related with snowmobiling within the City of Shorewood. These recommendations did not come about easily and will result in considerable financial burdens on the City in order for the recommendations to not only be implemented but monitored for positive and/or negative effects. The three main areas of concern are safety, enforcement and education. With the changes being implemented by Hennepin Parks for winter use on the Southwest Regional LRT Trail corridors ' the City is obligated to: ' 1. Immediately address all safety issues on or adjacent to trails, including access points. 2. Become responsible for signage for all authorized/unauthorized activities. 3. Enforce rules and regulations established by the City and the State. 4. Provide, along with the winter use permit, a certificate of insurance naming Hennepin Parks ' 5. as an additional named insured PLUS a document reflecting proposed or enacted rules and regulations. ' Safety Issues: While there has not been a death or serious injury in the last few years, it does not mean (based on both survev results and conclusions drawn from those results) that there are not concerns. Objective Survey Results: • 59% of 765 respondents surveyed do not feel comfortable in the presence of snowmobiles ' (31% of 216 riders concur). • 54% of 766 respondents surveyed feel snowmobiles present a real safety hazard on the trail (29% of riders concur and 64% non -riders feel safety hazard) 70% of 765 respondents feel alcohol is a major contributor to snowmobile carelessness (64% of the 215 riders concur) • 54% of 762 respondents do not feel children have the proper training (42% of the 215 riders concur) • only 36 of 225 rider respondents correctly listed 10 mph as city speed limit 43% or only 97 of the 225 rider respondents correctly listed 20 mph as LRT limit • 391/6 or 82 of the 215 rider respondents did not know either city or LRT limits Subjective Conclusions: The City does not have the manpower or equipment to enforce the rules. There are no measurements in place to reflect whether changes from prior task forces produced quantifiable improvements, or in fact negative consequences. The LRT is only 1 f-12 feet wide (2 snowmobiles passing in opposite directions require minimum of 8 feet) making motorized/non-motorized use mix unsafe. The proposed 4 foot, unpaved separate walking path next to the trail can only be done to approximately 50% of the corridor leaving 50% motorized/non-motorized use Currently Grant -in -Aide states that the trails cannot be used for nixed motorized/non-motorized usage While it is a given that the Ordinance needs re -writing specific verbage needs to be included to address multi -use. In order to remedy the safety related issues the City must commit to comprehensive education processes and zero tolerance enforcement of all City and State rules and regulations. The following tangiblestvariables are involved in accomplishing this: 1996 Snowmobile Task Fonx Repot 6/27,,96 ' There must be a commitment by outside agencies: DNR Park Rangers, Sheriffs Water Patrol to have an officially documented "agreement" for enforcement man-hours and in addition, the City must ensure the outside agencies have the authorization to enforce our Ordinance. ' Additionally, an Agreement must be established with Carver County for rules enforcement in Cathcart Park (even though our Ordinance states no snowmobiling in City Parks. SLMP state ' they cannot enforce our Ordinance because the Park is in Chanhassen). This enforcement issue relates to year-round usage. SLMPD will need to be provisioned with the equipment (snowmobiles) to adequately patrol, ' pursue and apprehend violators. Two officers must then be trained and man-hours dedicated to snowmobile enforcement. ' Officers logs, ARS reports must then be obtained monthly by City Staff, analyzed and determinations made as to whether this change has added value to the process. The continuation of data gathering is an integral step for continuing analysis of potential problems if snowmobiling is continued within the City. This input of data will however result in City Staff assuming additional responsibilities and being held accountable to see that it is done. The Park Commission and Council Members (or whomever is deemed the appropriate forum for review) ' will need to insure that the data is reviewed on a regular basis. Even with the implementation of these additional methods, visual snowmobile identification remains difficult. There is little that can be done locally, with the exception of persuading the ' State to change the size, color, and placement requirements for registration numbers that would afford easier identification of offenders (Task Force recommendations). Education would have to be a priority. The City has not produced materials since 1993 stating the rules and regulations of snowinobiling in the City. IF snowmobiling is to be continued in the City, a comprehensive education program (see Task Force recommendations) must be instituted and followed. People and Departments (Council, Parks, Planning, Stag, SUMP) must be made accountable to see that this is done. Noise abatement processes and recommendations also require additional equipment being secured for use by SLMP. While a decibel meter could probably be rented or borrowed on the short term, if complaints regarding noise continue, the City would have to give serious consideration in purchasing this equipment. Zero tolerance on curfew (either current or ' recommended hours) is deemed a partial solution to resolve some of the concerns but does not eliminate other issues related to noise. While there was a concerted effort to establish additional access to Lake Minnetonka for snowmobile use, Crescent Beach remains the only legal access. Access via Timber Lane, while not "illegal", if signed and changed per the recommendations made, will cause adverse effects (see Minority Opinion on Timber Lane access). If Grant -in -Aide funds are lost because of combined motorized/non-motorized use, the City must be prepared to take responsibility (financial and manpower) to groom the trail for multi -use. If Freeman Park is dedicated to cross-country skiing, hiking etc. trails will need to be groomed, parking lots plowed, patrolled by officers to ensure safety (additional financial and man-hour obligations). While a slight majority of 51% support continued use of snowmobiles on the trail, the margin of error in this survev is 2-1%. With this in mind, and taking into consideration the high 1996 Snownnobde Task Force Report 612796 r I percentages of survey respondents expressing concerns related to safety issues, the residents are basically telling us that the worst thing we can do is to let things remain status quo: Of 770 respondents to questions 34 "Alternatives to a ban." • 9% state do nothing different than is being done now • 29% want separate paths • 341/6 snowmobile riders should have restricted areas • 40% feel we need more education for children While the City is continually investigating areas to create off street trails, the designation of two areas deemed suitable for trails has been met with resistance from residents. One can only conclude that while there appears to be a need and desire for such trails, appropriate suitable locations are not easily found. Conclusion: Significant money and time has been invested in yet another task force and survey that tries to substantiate the need to maintain a recreation for 229 households (319 registered snowmobiles )1 within the City. This Task Force has produced data that reflects areas of major concern and made recommendations to help mitigate them. While the recommendations are not without merit, they are "perfect world" scenarios and require extreme amounts of commitment, accountability and finances to improve the situation. • Without the commitment and accountability from not only the City, but many outside agencies, along with a considerable financial commitment from the City of Shorewood, and all its residents, these recommendations cannot be effectively implemented. • Without securing snowmobiles for enforcement, the City and SLMP will not be able to commit to a "zero tolerance" statement. • Without commitment by outside agencies and providing them the authorization to enforce our Ordinance, however it reads, we will not be able to meet "zero tolerance". • Without additional commitment by the City to continually collect, tabulate and analyze data we will have no method of measuring whether the recommendationstchanges implemented have been effective. The City has to be accountable for educating the public on the rules and regulations on a continual basis and the City_ must be able to address all the safety concerns to the extent that the perception of the residents (riders and non -riders inclusive) is changed and they no longer have the perception that safety hazards exist on the trail. 1 DNR snowmobile registration report 1996 Snowmobde Task Fonx Report 6127.96 ' CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS SNOWMOBILE TASK FORCE MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD THURSDAY, APRIL 25, 1996 5:30 - 8:30 P.M. ' MINUTES 1. CONVENE TASK FORCE MEETING Co -Chair Virginia Kolstad called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m. Voting Members Present: John Arnst, Co-chair Bill Colopoulos (arrived at 6:35), Dana George, Co-chair Kolstad, Warren Peterson, and Ingrid Schaff Staff/Alternates Present: City Engineer Larry Brown, City Administrator Jim Hurm, Snow Patrol Representative Dan Puzak, Staff Research Assistant Becky Tarvin, Planning Commission Alternate Laura ' Turgeon, and Police Chief Rick Young I I I Staff/Alternates Absent: Park Commission Alternate Roxanne Martin Facilitator: Judy Marshik, Research Quik 2. GROUND RULES Co-chair Kolstad reviewed the ground rules including directing the Task Force to stay on subject, especially important during policy change area discussion. No policy making would occur during the first half of the meeting. Debate will be limited per Robert's Rules, copies of those rules will be available at the next meeting. Question conflict of interest. Any information discussed in the room shall remain in the room. The chairs will speak for the Task Force to any outside group. A "parking lot" flip chart will be used for new information sought by the Task Force. 3. REVIEW OF MINUTES (3/6 & 3/14) Co-chair Kolstad asked if there were any changes or corrections. Schaff did not recall discussion of Task Force related to staying with Task Force for duration of "several more months." Marshik clarified the March 6 minutes would have said "several more months" refered to the next two months - April and May. Discussion ended. Schaff noted data on page 9 was from Amst and Schaff. Schaff noted discussion on presentations did not seem to reflect Peterson's and George's statements that were made. Peterson's statements were "worrisome" as well as George's statements. Schaff noted George had referred to a statistic that 50% of the residents of Shorewood did not support a ban, and George would not support any further restrictions. Schaff questioned how discussion will be recorded. Co-chair Kolstad said meeting process will be handled under a following agenda item Generally no decision will be made without a vote and key issues will be recorded, including the motions relevant to policy change areas. A lot of discussion will take place, but not all content will be included. SNOWMOBILE TASK FORCE MEETING MINUTES April 25, 1996 - PAGE 2 Schaff questioned why meeting tapes will be destroyed. Schaff moved that we go back to the minutes and further get into the discussion portion of George's and Peterson's statements. Marshik suggested verbatim notations, Co-chair Kolstad suggested recording a summary of the discussion. Schaff accepted the friendly amendment to the motion to summarize discussion. Schaff said statements Peterson had made regarding�citizens of Shorewood who had called and made complaints are not accurate. Schaff indicated that she did not think anybody would get on the phone to do that. Marshik indicated the police address this issue in the Police Officer Interviews. George moved to accept the minutes as noted for correction. After no further discussion, motion passed 2 - 1, with 1 abstention. 4. MEETING DATES Co-chair Kolstad noted that an updated calendar was mailed out. For upcoming meetings, May 1 was agreed upon, May 23, 6:30 to 9:30, will replace May 25 meeting. George may not be in attendance on May 23. Co-chair Kolstad thanked Chief Young for a quick response to questions requested by the Task Force last week. Tarvin was acknowledged for diligently compiling of policy change area information submitted so far in the Policy Information Binder. 5. PRESENTATION BY LARRY BROWN ON MSA GUIDELINES Schaff and Arnst had requested information regarding MSA routes. The question from Schaff was to obtain Safety Guidelines for MSA trails discussed at the public hearing for the Smithtown Road off-street trail. Brown responded that the MSA trail has to meet certain width criteria if it is to be on -street. The basic safety guidelines for MSA trails include five feet on street in one direction, but they will consider a four foot minimum. At that point if you go with an off-street trail you have to have a four foot minimum width for each lane of traffic with a two foot buffer area between the curb and the trail. Essentially it is six feet in width. These guidelines are for bicycling that will meet state -aide criteria. The discussion related to the Smithtown Road Public Hearing may or may not be relevant with this discussion as to whether or not we would put the trail in as a state -aid trail and deviate from those factors. Smithtown Road trail would be predominantly used by pedestrians and bicyclists. Schaff asked if MSA paid for the trail, whether or not they prefer to combine pedestrian traffic with any type of motorized traffic. Brown responded by saying on an off-street trail there are not guidelines in the MSA standard which permit those two uses or recommend design standards for those uses. Where there are combined use guidelines is when there is in fact an on -street trail (a combined use area). MSA has design standards which cover the use of a trail for combined use on -street. H F� �J L I 7 u I I I' L I I I I I SNOWMOBILE TASK FORCE MEETING MINUTES April 25, 1996 - PAGE 3 Amst stated that an on -street trail would have many no -parking signs that would state that motorized use would be off-limits. Brown agreed. Schaff concluded the question had been answered. 6. ISSUES FROM TASK FORCE MEMBERS Schaff asked about discussion guidelines and Co-chair Kolstad noted guidelines will be addressed later in the meeting. Co-chair Kolstad and Co-chair Colopoulos attended -the City Council meeting on Monday, April 22, to get their input on the decision -making process. They reported the Council did not think a public hearing would be held on the issue of snowmobile usage and policy in Shorewood. Council has targeted early summer (June) to make a decision regarding snowmobile policy. Council requested the Task Force provide recommendations for decision -making, a summary of data obtained, and majority and minority opinions. If the Task Force is not able to come to concensus, a good analysis of the facts is requested. They will review the minutes of the meetings, and they will examine the data obtained by the Task Force. Council members were invited to attend the Task Force meetings as a better way to understand the process. Council requested that the Task Force be reminded they had been chartered to gather data and determine key arguments and make recommendations to Council for decision -making. The Council has not and will not discuss the issue of snowmobile usage in Shorewood until the Task Force has presented their final findings and submitted a recommendation. The Council wanted to remind the Task Force members that they were formally appointed by the Council and each member is charged with the responsibility of effectively exploring this issue. They are depending on the Task Force to provide a meaningful outcome for policy making decision. 7. REVIEW OF DISCUSSION RULES Co-chair Kolstad referred to memorandum sent to all Task Force members dated April 22, 1996. Each point was reviewed and accepted. Points include: Introduction of new data, issues and questions by Task Force members. It was clarified by Marshik that when further research is needed in a policy area the Task Force will be taking a vote. If accepted, the additional information will be included in the Policy Information Binder for Task Force review. The "parking lot" willbe used for storing information for future use or not previously introduced data. Schaff moved, and George seconded, to accept Discussion Guideline 1 related to Introduction of New Data, Issues and Questions from Task Force members. Motion passed unanimously. Guidelines for policy area discussions. Co-chair Kolstad reviewed intent of Discussion Guideline 2. Robert's rules were reviewed. Co-chair Kolstad will summarize Robert's Rules and forward to Task Force. SNOWMOBILE TASK FORCE MEETING MINUTES April 25, 1996 - PAGE 4 George moved, and Peterson seconded, to accept Discussion Guideline 2 related to Policy Area Discussions. Motion passed unanimously. Minutes. Will be taken by a professional service. Co-chair Kolstad introduced discussion of the purpose of the tapes. Schaff expressed concern of destroying tapes. It was agreed that tapes will be retained at City Hall. The written minutes were discussed. Co-chair Kolstad summarized the following: • Tapes will be retained at City Hall for public review until a decision is made by the City Council. • Minutes will be taken on substantive issues in the same manner as Council and Planning Commission minutes are currently. • Majority and minority opinions may be submitted on a worksheet, developed by Marshik, and will be recorded in the minutes upon vote of acceptance by Task Force. A written recommendation to change minutes may be submitted by a Task Force member. • Any changes to the minutes shall be substantive in nature to the discussion. Schaff moved, George seconded, to accept Discussion Guideline 3 related to Minutes. Motion passed unanimously. Advisory/Alternative members. Alternate replacement, placement and discussion input was reviewed. Arnst asked if alternates would be able to sit at the discussion table. Co-chair Kolstad stated not unless they are acting as a voting member. Schaff moved, and George seconded, to accept Discussion Guideline 4 related to Advisory/Alternative Members. Motion passed unanimously. Co-chair Kolstad reviewed Final Recommendations/Report format. No vote was requested at this time. 8. REVIEW OF TOPIC PRIORITIZATION AND FUTURE MEETING AGENDAS Co-chair Kolstad addressed group and summarized policy change areas to be covered based on rationale used and Task Force input from worksheets completed earlier. The first four areas cover violations, the second four areas cover impact on residents, the third meeting covers alternatives for the Task Force to consider, the fourth covers a continuation of alternatives. 9. IDENTIFICATION OF OUTSTANDING INFORMATION NEEDS Not reviewed, this was meant for prior to the meeting. 10. FIRST DRAFT OF THE SURVEY FINDINGS 0 1-1 r] ' SNOWMOBILE TASK FORCE MEETING MINUTES April 25, 1996 - PAGE 5 ' Judy Marshik distributed the preliminary results of the survey findings for placement in the Policy Information Binder. Additional surveys have been received since the last pick up Monday, April 22. Based on the cover letter included in the survey, Schaff moved, and Arnst seconded, all surveys received at City Hall by 5:00 p.m. Friday, April 26, would be included in the Survey Findings. Motion passed 4-1. ' Marshik reviewed report methodology with Task Force, noting findings are reported as a percentage of those responding, and an actual number of respondents. Other cross -tabs compare those responding as Riders/Non-riders and Support Ban of Snowmobiles/Do not Support Ban of Snowmobiles. The Task Force members were encouraged to review the results and make a request if any additional cross -tabs would be desired to evaluate any other issues. Upon completion of input, Research Quik will be able to report any requested ' findings. Submit any requests for additional cross -tab reporting to Co-chair Kolstad or Marshik. 1 Tarvin has been requested to obtain exact count of surveys mailed to get estimated percent returned. Marshik clarified a final report will be included and will summarize data results, and data ' gathering techniques. Co-chair Colopoulos asked why unidentified respondents zone districts would need to be determined. Marshik responded and said all information that can be obtained assists in the presentation and the Planning Department will be able to assist in the coding by location of the thirty or so uncoded responses. ' Marshik noted one-fourth to one-third of the approximately 800 surveys have written comments. Hurm committed that the City will provide a photocopy of each written comment in a binder displaying all written responses, available for public review at City ' Hall. 11. POLICE INTERVIEWS ' Marshik has completed five of the interviews. The interviews were expected to take ten minutes, but discussion lasted as long as 25 minutes with each officer. Three written ' officer responses were received at this meeting but not included in the summary. Three more are expected to be received, totaling eleven responses. Marshik distributed a preliminary report to be included in the Policy Information Binder ' and verbally summarized the initial findings as reported. A final report will be submitted. Marshik also noted that officers cooperation were very impressive as was their sincerity of ' their efforts to do enforcement and concern about being able to appropriately enforce code. Co-chair Colopoulos also affirmed the statement. ' Advisory member Puzak requested point of order four times and questioned personal opinion Co-chair Kolstad offered regarding trespassing results during discussion. Co-chair Kolstad apologized and stated she has no personal opinion on this issue at this time. 11 SNOWMOBILE TASK FORCE MEETING MINUTES April 25, 1996 - PAGE 6 12. COMPLAINT DATABASE Co-chair Kolstad distributed an updated Complaint Database Analysis for inclusion in the Policy Information Binder and reviewed findings with the Task Force. Co-chair Kolstad highlighted the findings as follows: • Data could be used as a guide for decision -making, but not a basis for decision - making. Summary does not include factual 3ata, just opinion. • 196 records received from South Lake Public Safety were used for input. 167 of the 196 were located in Shorewood. 117 were requests by Shorewood residents, or 51 % of the total complaints reported. 31 % of records were officers monitoring the trail. • 7% of complaints were verified complaints, an officer actually verified violation had occurred. Of the remaining 93%, record was either information only, no contact, gone on arrival, officer out of position to get to location, unable to locate violator, or other. • 75% of the 168 Shorewood complaint records were trail related. • Highest incidence of complaint reported occurred between 5:00 p.m. - 11:00 p.m. In this report, no one day had a significantly higher incidence of reporting than any other. • Summary of previous Initial Complaint Records for snowmobile seasons since 1990 was included. • Summary of Dog Complaints was reviewed noting barking as a significant noise issue was also included. Schaff requested information be gathered related to an arrest reported in the newspaper in December 1995. Ms. Schaff indicated she would follow-up and find out where the incidence occurred, what enforcing agency was responsible and the outcome. Schaff moved to include a memorandum to Ingrid Schaff, from Chief Young, dated October 10, 1995, in the Snowmobile Complaint Database Appendix of the Policy Information Binder. Turgeon requested information from other agencies be included. Co-chair Kolstad reported that Park Ranger, DNR and other agencies reporting violations did not have enough information to include in the database. Schaff moved, and Arnst seconded, to include any more citations or police calls that were done from March 26 to April 15, 1996, into the Complaint Database. Motion carried unanimously. Co-chair Kolstad reported that other individual complaints whether it was curfew, noise or speeding are also on the attachment with the April 22 Co-chair Kolstad memo sent to Task Force members. Curfew seemed to be the easiest violation to verify. Trespass was the most difficult to verify because of right-of-way issues, and lack of understanding of such. Co-chair Kolstad called a five-minute break, after which the meeting reconvened. n I I I I 11 I I SNOWMOBILE TASK FORCE MEETING MINUTES April 25, 1996 - PAGE 7 Co-chair Colopoulos reviewed guidelines for discussion of policy areas. Because of limited time for the remainder of this meeting, two policy areas will be reviewed at this meeting, and, if time permits, the other two areas will be reviewed. Chief Young requested the first page of the Police Officer Interview report be removed because it includes the officers names. The request was accepted and will be replaced by a number corresponding to each officer, without their name. 13. POLICY CHANGE AREA DISCUSSION Co-chair Colopoulos reviewed the guidelines noting the Task Force will ask 1) Is there a problem with curfew in our current policy and practice?; and 2) If change is needed what are the alternatives? Policy Change Areas related to Curfew, Speed Limits, Snowmobile Identification and Noise Abatement will be discussed. 14. POLICY CHANGE AREA TWO - CURFEW Amst compared snowmobile curfew to the City construction ordinance. The time frame for construction is 7 a.m. - 7 p.m. and suggested that he would like to study the snowmobile curfew time, both the beginning and ending times. Schaff pointed out that review of citations would show necessity to review curfews. Young was inquired and replied that curfew is easy to enforce because of the time element. An earlier curfew would cause more violations, a later curfew would cause less violations. Schaff also posed potential question of conflict of regulations with the MN State Statute related to the sunrise to sunset provision regarding snowmobile riding on state and county roads. Young verified that MN State Statute has priority over City Ordinances. Schaff noted concern of trail running parallel to Smithtown Road not being in compliance with MN State Statute after sunset and before sunrise with headlights riding in opposing traffic direction. George stated concern that issue was not related to issue of curfew. Arnst moved, and Schaff seconded, to direct the City Attorney to review Minnesota Statute 84.87 Subd. 1(a): Operation on streets and highways, noting if that portion of the Southwest LRT that runs parallel to Smithtown Road, a County Road, would be in conflict with the sunrise to sunset provision which requires headlights not be directed towards oncoming traffic. George pointed out that this issue did not seem to belong under Curfew. Co-chair Colopoulos agreed with George, noting the question does not apply to Curfew in a concrete fashion. Amst pointed out that "sunset" relates to time and the Curfew issue. Motion was defeated 3-2 with 1 abstaining. Co-chair Colopoulos, George and Peterson voted against, Arnst and Schaff voted in favor, Co-chair Kolstad abstained. Schaff moved, and Arnst seconded, to explore curfew policy changes. SNOWMOBILE TASK FORCE MEETING MINUTES April 25, 1996 - PAGE 8 Amst expressed concern that an 11:00 curfew does not allow for a good night's sleep if you live next to the trail. Co-chair Kolstad reminded Task Force to speak to issue of whether or not there is a problem with the curfew. Marshik reported survey findings of 21 % said increasing curfew times (lengthening time, making it more restrictive) would be an option they would like to be explored. Co-chair Kolstad noted curfew citation violations as entered in the Complaint Database are generally between 11:00 p.m. and 1:00 a.m. George noted tightening of curfew restrictions would cause more violations. He stated only eight violations occurred after 11:00 p.m. Arnst requested to add information to the parking lot pertaining to an early night's sleep. Request was denied because of current motion on the floor. Co-chair Kolstad added that the Task Force consider Chief Young's input that if the curfew was made more restrictive it would increase the violations and enforcement time; if the curfew was made less restrictive it would reduce the violations and enforcement time. In addition, Co-chair Kolstad noted if changes will be made in the curfew time, the Task Force should consider whether or not the impact will improve anything by said change. Marshik clarified that by choosing to discuss a policy change area does not necessarily mean the further discussion will result in future changes. It means the Task Force will look at alternatives (per discussion guidelines accepted previously). Schaff referred to the noise study conducted by the Southwest Trail Association which talks about disturbance of sleep being one of biggest issues related to noise. Discussion of curfew may be difficult without discussion of noise as well. Schaff noted Mr. Puzak recommended 10:00 p.m. curfew. Mr. Puzak responded by saying that 10:00 would be "entertained" if snowmobiling would be allowed for a long time. It was a negotiated position. Marshik reported survey findings showed snowmobiles are not as annoying as barking dogs. 84 respondents said snowmobile noise compared to the most annoying noise they were aware of was the most annoying, 195 said it was somewhat annoying, 335 said it was not annoying at all, and 120 said it was not applicable because there were no snowmobilers in the area. Schaff moved, and Arnst seconded, the Task Force consider exploring curfew policy changes. Vote called: Schaff - yea, Arnst - yea, Peterson - nay, George - nay, Co-chair Kolstad - nay, Co-chair Colopoulos - nay. Motion defeated 4-2. 15. POLICY CHANGE AREA THREE - SPEED LMTS Co-chair Kolstad commented that the Alternate and Advisory members are not to discuss when motions are on table. Members must rely on data in the Policy Information Binder, or previously accepted data, for making policy change area recommendations. Advisory personnel and alternates can utilize point of information to direct input to the Task Force. 11 I I I SNOWMOBILE TASK FORCE MEETING MINUTES April 25, 1996 - PAGE 9 ' Marshik introduced survey findings, noting that huge amounts of misinformation existed, people did not seem to know what the speed limits are. ' Schaff moved, Arnst seconded, to address the current speed limit policy area for change in the City of Shorewood. Schaff stated she would like to see one citywide speed limit. One speed limit would allow residents to have no question as to whether one was speeding on the street, on the trail, wherever you are it would be one speed limit. ' George suggested placing more signage on trail, arfd throughout the community, to assist in educating residents about current speed limits for snowmobiles. ' Vote called: Schaff, aye; Arnst aye; Peterson, aye; George, aye; Co-chair Kolstad, aye. Motion approved unanimously. ' Discussion of chair voting occurred. Determined that presiding Co-chair, Mr. Colopoulos, would not be voting during policy change area discussion unless a tie -vote must be broken. Robert's Rules would support the chair abstaining. George requested more information on ' which Co-chair would be presiding over future meetings. The chairs will discuss and respond. ' The Task Force will vote by a show of hands, and the chair will abstain unless there is a tie. Due to time constraints, speed limit discussion will be tabled until the next meeting. The remaining policy change areas will be briefly looked at to see if people want to entertain any changes for those areas, if so, further discussion will be tabled until the next meeting as well. Co-chair Kolstad moved, George seconded, that further discussion on speed limits be tabled and the Task Force proceed with discussion about Policy Change Area 6, Noise Abatement. Motion passed unanimously. 16. POLICY CHANGE AREA 4 - SNOWMOBILE IDENTIFICATION ' Co-chair Kolstad moved, Peterson seconded, that there be no further discussion on the issue of snowmobile identification. ' Co-chair Kolstad noted that she was unsure how much of this is in local control. Many identification issues are determined by the State and other agencies. Arnst noted that it is difficult to identify snowmobiles and the snowmobile driver because the registration number is small and hard to read. It is difficult to identify the driver because of the outerwear usually including a full helmet, goggles, thick clothing, unmarked from the outside, and inability to identify height, weight, etc. ' Hurm noted that Task Force could recommend to Council that they approach the appropriate bodies that there is concern regarding this area. ' Schaff noted that Hurm had previously written to an agency noting that difficulty of identifying and enforcing smaller snowmobile registration displays. SNOWMOBILE TASK FORCE MEETING MINUTES , April 25, 1996 - PAGE 10 George noted that there are a variety of ways to identify vehicles, but it could be a waste of , the Task Force's time to proceed with discussing snowmobile identification. The Council may want to address it, but the Task Force should not continue to discuss snowmobile identification. , Co-chair Kolstad moved, Peterson seconded, there be no further discussion on the issue of Snowmobile Identification. Motion defeated 3-2. , Co-chair Kolstad moved, Schaff seconded, that further discussion on the issue of Snowmobile Identification Policy Area be done to formulate a recommendation to City Council with respect to providing a position to the ' State on this issue. Motion passed 4-1. Co-chair Kolstad moved, Arnst seconded, the Task Force table discussion of Snowmobile Identification until the next meeting, and move onto ' discussion of Noise Abatement Policy. Motion passed unanimously. 17. POLICY CHANGE AREA 6 - NOISE ABATEMENT ' Schaff moved, Co-chair Kolstad seconded, that the Task Force further look into noise abatement. Schaff noted that the Southwest Trail Association conducted a decibel study many years ago but the study was done 50 feet from the trail. Schaff feels that the study did not do a good service to all the citizens of Shorewood because most homes are within 40 feet from ' the roadway and many homes are five feet or less from the right-of-way so the concerns of these citizens were not taken into account. Also not taken into account was the fact that pedestrians and cross-country skiers are on the trail so the decibel reading that the , Southwest Trail Association conducted was strictly for homes or an area 50 feet from the trail. Sometimes people are within two feet of a snowmobile. Schaff referred to the Policy Information Binder, Item 6.5C, which stated that "even though legislation had been , designed to control noise output in order to protect both the operator and the passenger, and to reduce the environmental impact, customer demand for high horsepower however tends to work against noise abatements for snowmobiles." Another reference was to how noise harms more than ears, unrelated to decibel readings. , Schaff also cited ratings of many home and yard equipment that were considered ' exceedingly noisy, including snowmobiles. This is related to curfew, as well, because the time of day you hear the noise seems relevant. The Southwest Trail Association study, page 6 Human Reaction, identifies the disturbance of sleep as one of the most common reasons given when complaining about noise, including facts listed. ' Marshik noted a survey question related to noise, stating that results conclude noise is a broad -based issue with a significant number of respondents noting many different kinds of ' noise such as construction noise, traffic noise and others. Dogs, by far, were the greatest source of annoying noise, neighbor noise rated second, and motor boat as well as snowmobile noise rated third. ' Schaff pointed out City Ordinance 245 regulates loud and unnecessary noise. Ms. Schaff noted snowmobile noise, for some people, is an annoyance and disturbance and would like to have further discussion on the subject. , I I I SNOWMOBILE TASK FORCE MEETING MINUTES April 25, 1996 - PAGE 11 Amst noted people do not have the ability to do anything about noise. This Task Force, however, has the chance to do something about noise regulation and should not pass on this opportunity. George noted the data supplied was from 1978, and that the information seemed to be more of an opinion, and asked if there was documentation. Schaff stated there was documentation. Co-chair Colopoulos moved the question. Marshik suggested bringing written alternatives to the Task Force for decision -making. Vote called on the motion, motion carried 3-1 with one abstention. Co-chair Kolstad moved, Schaff seconded, that discussion on the issue of noise be tabled until the next meeting. Motion carried 4-0. 18. NEXT MEETING DATE/REMINDERS The Co-chairs requested members to be prepared for policy change area discussions for the next meeting. When consideration of a policy change area had been completed, Schaff asked if minority opinions were to be added. It was confirmed that minority opinions would be included if written and submitted to the Task Force. Arnst requested a copy of all individual trail walk reports. A copy of the reports will be provided upon request. 19. ADJOURNMENT Co-chair Kolstad moved, Schaff seconded, to adjourn the meeting at 8:35 pm. Motion carried unanimously. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Rebecca A. Tarvin, Recording Secretary I ATTEST: LLIAM C LOP ULOS, CO-CHAIR VIRGIN KOLST D CO-CHAIR (Official Publication) ORDINANCE NO. 59 ORDINANCE REGULATING THE USE OF SNOWMOBILES IN THE VILLAGE OF SHOREWOOD AND PROVIDING PENAL. TIES FOR VIOLATION THEREOF The Village Council of the Village of Shore- wood ordains as follows: Section 1. DEFINITIONS. For the purpose his Ordinance the terms defined herein have the following meanings ascribed to m. Subdivision 1. "Person" includes an indi4id- ual, partnership. corporation, the state and its agencies and subdivision, and any body of persons, whether incorporated or not. Subd. 2. "Snowmobile" means a self-pro- pelled vehicle designed for travel on snow or ice or natural terrain steered by wheels, skis or runners Subd. 3. "Owner" means a person, other than a lien holder having the property in or title to snowmobile entitled to the use or possession thereof. Subd. 4. "Operate" means to ride in or on and control the operation of a snowmobile. Subd. 5. "Operator" means every person who operates or is in actual physical control of a snowmobile. Subd. 6. "Roadway" means that portion of a highway improved, designed. or ordinarily used for vehicular travel, including the shoul- der Subd. 7. "Street or highway" means the entire width between boundary Imes of any way or place when any part thereof is open to the use of the public, as a matter of right, for the purposes of vehicular traffic. Subd. 8. "Right of way" means the entire strip of land traversed by a highway or street in which the public owns the fee or an ease- ment for roadway purposes. Subd. 9. "Safety or deadman" throttle is defined as a device which, when pressure is removed from the engine accelerator or throttle, causes the motor to be disengaged from the driving track. Section 2. OPERATION ON STREETS AND HIGHWAYS. Subdivison 1. No person shall operate a snowmobile upon the roadway, oulder or inside bank or slope of any trunk, ty state aid, or county highway in this +ge and, in the case of a divided trunk or my highway, on the right of way between the opossing lanes of traffic, except as pro- vided in this Ordinance, nor shall operation on any such highway be permitted where the roadway directly abuts a public sidewalk or walkway or property used for private pur- poses. No person shall operate a snowmobile within the right of way of any trunk, county state aid, or county highway between the hours of one-half hour after sunset to one-half hour before sunrise, except on the right hand side of such right of way and in the same direction as the highway traffic on the near- est lane of the roadway adjacent thereto. No snowmobile shall be operated at any time within the right of way of any interstate highway or freeway within this state. Subd. Z. A Snowmobile may make a direct crossing of a street or highway except an interstate highway or freeway, provided: a. The crossing is made at an angle of approximately 90 degrees to the direction of the street or highway and at a place where no obstruction prevents a quick and safe crossing. b. The snowmobile is brought to a complete stop before crossing the shoulder or main traveled way of the highway. c. The driver yields the right of way to all oncoming traffic which constitutes an immediate hazard. d. In crossing a divided street or highway, the crossing is made only at an intersec- tion of such street or highway with another.public street or highway. e. If the crossing is made between the hours of one-half hour after sunset to one- half hour before sunrise or in conditions of reduced visibility, only if both front and rear lights are on. Subd. 3. No snowmobile shall enter any 0.s ntrolled intersection without making a Mete stop. The operator shall then yield ;fight of way to any vehicles or pedestri- which constitute an immediate hazard. Subd. 4. Notwithstanding any prohibition in this Ordinance, a snowmobile may be oper- ated on a public thoroughfare in an emer- gency during the period of time when and at locations where snow upon the roadway ren- ders travel by automobile impractical. Section 3. OPERATION GENERALLY.' Except as otherwise specifically permitted and authorized, it is unlawful for any person to operate a snowmobile within the limits of the Village of Shorewood: Subdivision 1. On a public sidewalk or walkway provided or used for pedestrian travel. Subd. 2. On private property of another without lawful authority or consent of the owner or occupant. Subd. 3. On any publicly owned lands and frozen waters, including but not limited to school grounds, park property, playgrounds, recreation areas and golf courses, except areas previously listed or authorized for such use by the proper public authority, in which case such use should be lawful and snowmo- biles may be driven in and out of such areas by the shortest route. Authorized areas in the Village of Shorewood ,owned by the Village shall be designated by Council resolution. Subd. 4. At any place, while under the influ- ence of intoxicating ifquor or narcotics or habit forming drugs. Subd. 5. At a rate of speed greater than reasonable or proper under all the surround- ing circumstances. Subd. 6. At any place in a careless, reckless or negligent manner so -as to endanger the person or property of another or to cause injury or damage thereto. Subd. 7. So as to tow any person or thing on a public street or highway except through use of a rigid tow bar attached to the rear of the snowmobile. Subd. 8. At a speed greater than ten miles an hour when within 100 feet of any Lake- shore, except in channels, or of fisherman, ice house or skating rinks, nor shall operation be permitted within 100 feet of any sliding area, nor where the operation would conflict with the lawful use of property or would endanger other persons or property. Subd. 9. In a manner so as to create a loud. unnecessary or unusual noise which disturbs. annoys or interferes with the,peace and quiet of other persons. Section 4. EQUIPMENT. It is unlawful for any person to operate a snowmobile any place within the limits of the Village of Shorewood unless it is equipped with the following: Subdivision 1. Standard snufflers which are properly attached and in constant operation. and which reduce the noise of operation of the motor to the minimum necessary for opera - ion. Mufflers shall comply with Regulation CONS. 55 which is hereby adapted by refer- ence as it existed on September,l. 1970. No person shall use a muffler cutout, by-pass, straight pipe or similar device on a snowmo- bile motor, and the exhaust system shall not emit or produce a sharp popping or crackling sound. Subd. 2. Brakes adequate to control the movement of and to stop and hold the snow- -nobile under any conditions of operation. Subd. 3. A safety or so-called "deadman' throttle in operating condition, so that when pressure is removed from the accelerator or throttle, the motor is disengaged from the driving track. Subd. 4. At least one clear lamp attached to the front, with sufficient intensity to reveal persons and vehicles at a distance of at least 100 feet ahead during the hours of darkness under normal atmospheric conditions. Such head lamp shall be so aimed that glaring rays are not projected into the eyes of an oncom- ing vehicle operator. It shall also be equipped with at least one red tail lamp having a minimum candle power of sufficient intensity to exhibit a red light plainly visible from a distance of 500 feet to the rear during the hours of darkness under normal atmospheric conditions. The equipment to be in operating condition when the vehicle is operated between the hours of one-half hour after sunset to one-half hour before sunrise or at times of reduced visibility. Subd. 5. Reflective material at least 16 square inches on each side, forward of the ianndlebars, so as to reflect or beam light at a ninety degree angle. Section 5. APPLICATION OF OTHER LAWS. Village traffic ordinances shall apply to the operation of snowmobiles upon streets and highways. and Minnesota Statutes 1969, Sections 84.81 to 84.88, and Minnesota Statutes 1969, Chapter 169 except for those provisions relating to required equipment, are hereby `adopted by reference, except those provisions i which by their nature have no application. Section 6. PERSONS UNDER 18. Subdivi- sion 1. No person under 14 year of age shall operate on streets or high wa s or make a direct crossing of a street or highway as the operator of a snowmobile. A person 14. years of age or older, but less than 18 years of age, may operate a snowmobile on streets or highways as permitted under this Ordinance and make a direct crossing thereof only of he has in his immediate possession a valid snowmobile safety certificate issued by the commissioner of conservation as provided by Minnesota Statutes 1969, Section 84.86. Subd. 2. It is unlawful for the owner of a snowmobile to permitithe snowmobile to be operated contrary to the provisions of this section. Section 7. LEAVING SNOWMOBILE UNATTENDED. Every person leaving a snowmobile in a public place shall lock the ignition, remove the keiy and take the same with him. Section 8. CHASING ANIMALS FORBID- DEN. It is unlawful to intentionally drive, chase, run over or kill any animal, wild or domestic, with a snowmobile. Section 9. VIOLATIONS. Every person convicted of a violation of any of the provi- sions of this Ordinance shall be punished by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars ($M.00i or by imprisonment for a period of not more than ninety (90) days, or both, but in either case the costs of prosecution may be added. Sectiion 10, SEVERABILITY. Should any section, subdivision, clause or other provision of this Ordinance be held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction. such decision shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole, or any part thereof, other than the part held to be invalid. Section 11. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordi- nance becomes effective from and after its passage and publication. Adopted by the Village Council of the Vil- lage of Shorewood this 28 day of December, 1970. J.000PER Mayor Attest: MURIEL J. WHOWELL Clerk (Jan. 7, 1971)=EX • CITY OF SHOREWOOD ORDINANCE NO. 312 AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE PARKING OF MOTOR VEHICLES IN PARKS OR ON PUBLIC GROUND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 801.06 of the Shorewood Code of Ordinances is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 801.06.Operation and Parking of Vehicles in Parks or on Public Grounds: Subd. 1. Operation of Vehicles in Parks or Public Grounds. Except police officers or duly authorized and uniformed snow patrol personnel in the performances of their duties, no person should stop, stand, or park a vehicle or operate any vehicle, or ride any bicycle or horse, except in compliance with the directions of a police officer on any park property or other public grounds within the limits of the City, except when such areas are designated for any of such uses and signs prohibiting any of such uses on any park property or public grounds shall be complied with.' (Ord. 246, 10-28-91) Subd. 2. Parking of Vehicles in Parks or on Public Grounds: No person shall park a motor vehicle in parks or on public grounds except in designated isparking areas and where parking areas provide for striped parking stalls no person shall park more than one (1) motor vehicle per designated parking stall. For purposes of this section, parking shall not include those attended vehicles stopped in the process of accessing public waters. • Subd. 3. Violations. Violations of the provisions of this section may be subject to a fine not to exceed $35.00 and/or towing. Section 2. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA this 24 day of June, 1996. ATTEST: James C. Hurm, City Administrator i ' See also Chapter 902 of this Code. �F Robert B. Bean, Mayor RESOLUTION NO. �.Z.) RESOLVED that snowmobiling on the frozen waters of Lake William within the Village of Shorewood shall be and hereby is prohibited in accordance with the terms of Ordinance No. 59. Adopted this day of ''� c�n��-� 117A . Amendment in minutes of 1/8/1973 to minutes of 12/11/72 ,11g17-� RESOLUTION NO. 7 — 73 RESOLVED,that children be and herein are authorized to use the ice surface of Lake William for snowmobiling until the hour of 9:00 P.M., RESOLVED FURTHER, that adults be authorized to use the ice surface of Lake William for access to and from Lake Minnetonka, RESOLVED FURTHER, that the residents of Lake William appoint a representative to assist the Council in handling matters involving snowmobiling in the Lake William area. Is Adopted by the Shorewood Village Council this 8th day of January, 1973. 0 0 U z w m W 00 r z 0 a Q w z z_ 0 w U) U) w D z w a a z w x 0 n April 28, 2019 Marie Darling Planning Director City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 RE: Proposal to Provide Surveying for staking out and creating and exhibit for 10 Fire Lanes (lake access rights of way) in the City of Shorewood Dear Marie: On behalf of WSB & Associates, Inc., I am pleased to respond to your request for proposal regarding the above -mentioned project. WSB's team can offer outstanding value by providing you with an experienced team at competitive rates. Our Survey Crew Chiefs, on average, have more than 20 years of experience and are qualified as Certified Survey Technicians. We have the expertise and equipment needed to provide the City of Andover quality surveying services, on time and within budget. Our approach will be as follows: WSB survey crews will locate or establish all property corners or right of way lines along all 10 of the fire lanes within the City of Shorewood per the request, this data will be on the Hennepin County coordinate system so the data can be easily transferred to a GIS database, from the field data collected WSB office technicians will create individual fire lane exhibits with and aerial photo background, the deliverable for this project will be all electronic cad files, PDFs of the exhibits and the raw field data. WSB is proposing to complete the above surveying tasks on an hourly basis, in accordance with our fee schedule as follows: • Field Survey Crew Time $8800.00 • Office time for comps and exhibit creation $5000.00 Our survey staff is available to start on this work within one week of being authorized. Thank you for considering WSB & Associates, Inc. for your surveying needs. We are looking forward to being of service to you and your staff on this project. If you are in agreement with the terms as noted above, please sign where indicated below and return a copy to our office. If you have any questions regarding this proposal, please contact me at 763-287-7159. Sincerely, Authorized City Representative WSB & Associates, Inc. i rf Pete D. Helder Survey Group Coordinator K\proposals\Shorewood Fire Lanes.docx By Title Date CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 Country Club Road • Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 •952-960-7900 Fax: 952-474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityha11@ci.shorewood.mn.us To: Park Commission/Planning Commission and City Council From: Marie Darling, Planning Director Meeting Date: January 15, 2019 Re: Fire Lane Usage Attachments: Chapter 1201.03 Subd. 19 Zoning Map with fire lanes identified Chapter 902 of City Code, Public Parks and Recreation Areas Chapter 611 of City Code, Snowmobile Adjacent City's Codes Fire Lane Photnc Correspondence Received At the January 31, 2018 City Council meeting, a resident spoke at "Matters from the Floor" and requested that the City Council consider allowing small vehicles (snowmobile, four -wheelers, etc.) the ability to access Lake Minnetonka through Fire Lane 3. His request was spurred after an adjacent property owner put up a sign which indicated correctly that no motorized vehicles are permitted to use Fire Lane 3. At a worksession on February 12, 2018, some members of the City Council thought they would be willing to consider amendments to allow limited vehicle access in some fire lanes and suggested adding another classification of fire lanes to allow vehicle access without allowing parking or swimming that is allowed for Fire Lane 6. Only a couple of residents were at the meeting. Some were in favor of snowmobile access but not trucks or larger vehicles. Also, as part of the public input on the Comprehensive Plan Update last year, the City undertook a survey of resident priorities. As part of the open -answered questions, several residents responded that they felt the residents needed greater public access to the lakes and/or more lake - oriented facilities like kayak storage, a public boat launch, etc. What are the Fire Lanes? The fire lanes were land originally dedicated to the public to allow pumper fire trucks to access lake water to fight fires. The fire lanes are no longer needed for water access for firefighting, instead for an increasing amount of demand for public lake access. The 10 fire lanes all serve as public lake access. There are six on Lake Minnetonka and four on Lake William. Many of the fire lanes are hard to spot and are known mostly to the adjacent property owners. Two of the more well-known and well -used fire lanes are 3 (extension of Grant Lorenz) and 6 (adjacent to Crescent Beach). Over time, private improvements have begun to creep into the fire lanes, such as retaining walls and temporary winter storage of docks. Has the City ever studied them before? In 1956, the City adopted an ordinance that prohibited parking on or blocking any of the fire "alleys". Any vehicle use on the fire lane was considered blocking and any boat tied up to the fire lane was also considered blocking. In 1977, the City adopted an ordinance that prohibited driving any vehicle on park land except designated parking area and trails. These regulations were also applied to the fire lanes. In 1985, the City adopted most of the current regulations as part of the adoption of a complete update of the zoning regulations. The fire lane regulations were studied for about two -years with extensive resident input. The discussion was spurred by complaints that residents were: 1) tying their boats near the shore, 2) parking trucks and trailers in the fire lanes, 3) constructing docks and other improvements in or near the fire lanes, 4) engaging in loud, disruptive behavior in and near the fire lanes, etc. When City staff began notifying users that vehicle access was not permitted on the fire lanes, requests for expanding/reducing public access to the lake were subsequently received. The fire lane regulations were subsequently amended in 1999 and 2011 to add or alter the general regulations. What does City Code allow? The City Code currently does not allow use of the fire lanes by any motorized vehicles, except for the fire lane directly adjacent to Crescent Beach. The City of Shorewood allows that fire lane to be used for snowmobile access in the winter and parking of vehicles near the beach. No other fire lane allows vehicle access to a lake. All park and recreational areas (including fire lanes) are not allowed to be accessed between 10:30 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. except for organized activities sponsored by the City of Shorewood. Chapter 611.03 of City Code prohibits snowmobile use anywhere between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7 a.m. Sunday through Thursday and between 11:00 p.m. and 7 a.m. on Friday and Saturday. Chapter 611.02 limits speeds up to 10 mph on public property. What do other cities allow? While there is no pressure to change Shorewood regulations based on what other cities' ordinances allow or don't allow, they offer insights and ideas. A quick survey of whether other cities regulations allow motor vehicles is noted below. The cities that allow any motorized vehicles, even if limited to one fire lane and/or one type of vehicle, are included in the "Allow" column. city Shorewood Allow Vehicles Prohibit Vehicles Excelsior Minnetonka Beach Mound Tonka Bay Wayzata Of those cities that allow vehicles, most restrict vehicles to certain classifications of fire lanes and limit the access to certain types of vehicles. The Wayzata ordinance (attached) pertains only to snowmobiles. The City of Mound has no specific code language regulating Fire Lanes, but most of their fire lanes allow winter snowmobile access. What are the questions to be answered? Based on the direction of the discussion, staff would write up draft ordinances to be reviewed by both commissions at separate meetings. These ordinance may include: • an allowance for specific motorized vehicles • reduced hours of operation • reduced speed limits other issues as directed The commissions may also discuss other elements of fire lane management to increase visibility and use and to allow the type of access recommended (pedestrian, vehicle, etc.) • surveying the fire lanes and installing markers/informational signs • install vehicle barriers (where appropriate) • clear vegetation and any private improvements that have crept onto the public lands Chapter 1201.03 of the Shorewood City Code Subd. 19. Fire lanes. a. Purpose. Recognizing that all fire lanes are to provide lake access to the public, this subdivision is established to identify, classify and regulate the use thereof based upon their historic use within the city. b. Use classifications. The use of fire lanes in Shorewood shall be restricted to one of the following classifications: (1) Class I may be used for pedestrian access to the lake, fishing from shore, launching canoes and other small boats not requiring a trailer and cross-country skiing; (2) Class II may be used for all of the activities as designated in Class I except fishing, as well as snowmobile access during the winter, parking and swimming; (3) Class III may be used only for pedestrian access to the lake, fishing, launching canoes and other small boats not requiring a trailer. In addition, a single dock may be installed subject to the following: (a) The person or group of persons installing the dock shall be Shorewood residents and apply for an annual building permit prior to installation of the dock; (b) The total length of the dock shall not exceed 25 feet; (c) The dock shall be installed by a professional installer and maintained in a safe and workmanlike manner; (d) The use of the dock shall be for the general public and shall not be limited to use by those who install it; (e) Docking of boats shall be limited to daytime hours only between sunrise and sunset; (f) The dock shall comply with all requirements of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District. C. Designation of fire lanes. The following fire lanes shall be identified on the Official Zoning Map and shall be classified as follows: (1) Class I: 1-Enchanted Island, 2-Shady Island, 3-Grant Lorenze, 4-Third Street, 7-Ferncroft, 8-Ivy Lane, 9-Rustic Way South, 10-Rustic Way North; (2) Class II: 6-Crescent Beach; (3) Class III: 5-Eureka. d. General regulations. (1) Fire lanes shall be used only for the activities provided for in subdivision b above. No sporting activities shall be allowed which involve thrown objects such as catch, softball, baseball, frisbee, volleyball or football. (2) Fire lanes shall be subject to the rules and regulations contained in Shorewood Ordinance 140, as may be amended, (Chapter 902) pertaining to the use of city parks, including, but not limited to, use of intoxicating beverages. (3) Maintenance and improvements of fire lanes shall be the sole responsibility of the city. No one shall maintain or make improvements, except as modified herein, without the approval of the City Administrator/Clerk or his or her agent. (4) Except in Class II fire lanes, there shall be no parking of automobiles, boat trailers or snowmobiles on or adjacent to any of the fire lanes identified herein. (5) Except for snowmobiles in Class II fire lanes, motorized vehicles shall be prohibited on fire lanes. (6) Lots with side yards abutting fire lanes shall provide a total of 30 feet of side yard setback with no one side being less than ten feet. t U U F= U U e5 S S rn m c u V- O O Q O H N O O o ; O O 7 w O O N j ; N � U .O LJJ O z cn N N U J 'O Z O J (D 0 ® o w 0- (n (DryZ J LU IElJ L!_ ® Q U � � U V co r N CU U a a a cn co C/) O co O co O O O O O O O O O O 6 p M p N p O O O O O O O O O p Lfj OLdO 0 �+ co co m _E3 O O a� 0) o o m cj� co CO N m N U N c� m cV7 U 77EIEIF�El aa is a a) O O O O O O O O ® LL LU ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Shorewood, MN Code of Ordinances CHAPTER 902 PUBLIC PARKS AND RECREATION AREAS Section 902.01 Purpose 902.02 General regulations and rules of conduct 902.03 Animals in park and recreation areas 902.04 Vehicle restrictions 902.05 Additional rules for use of park and recreation facilities 902.06 Use of recreational facilities by athletic associations 902.07 Discrimination in parks 902.08 Inspections for aquatic invasive species 902.09 Application of provisions to city employees 902.10 Administrative rules and regulations 902.11 Violation 902.01 PURPOSE. The purpose of this chapter is to regulate the use of and to provide uniform rules of conduct for city parks and recreational areas in the city. (1987 Code, § 902.01) 902.02 GENERAL REGULATIONS AND RULES OF CONDUCT. No person in a city park or recreation area shall: Subd. 1. Closing hours. Enter or remain in any park between the hours of 10:30 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. unless the person is participating in an organized activity authorized by the city; Subd. 2. Overnight use. Set up any tent, shack or other temporary shelter in any park, nor shall any person leave any property, including, but not limited to, vehicles, campers and trailers in any park between the hours of 10:30 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. without the written permission of the City Administrator/Clerk; Subd. 3. Tampering with city property. Deface, destroy, tamper with, injure or remove any city property, including, but not limited to furniture, structures, vegetation, signs or soils; Subd. 4. Littering. Scatter or litter the grounds or any lake, pond or watercourse within or draining into a park with any form of trash, but shall place the material in the proper receptacles where these are provided. Where receptacles are not provided, all the trash shall be carried away from the area by the person responsible for its presence; Subd. 5. Fires. Start a fire, except a small fire for cooking purposes in a designated area and then only in a fire ring, grill or portable stove or fail to fully extinguish a fire; Subd. 6. Sales. Sell or conduct any commercial enterprise unless authorized by written permit from the City Council; American Legal Publishing Corp. 28 Shorewood, MN Code of Ordinances Subd. 7. Handbills and advertisements. Paste, affix or inscribe any handbill, poster or sign or distribute handbills, circulars or announcements of any kind for a commercial purpose, unless authorized by written permit from the City Council; Subd.8. Gamble; Subd. 9. Liquor. Use or bring alcoholic beverages, including beer; Subd. 10. Drugs. Use or bring illegal drugs; Subd. 11. Glass containers. Bring any glass containers; Subd. 12. Use of restrooms. If over five years of age, use any restroom or washroom designated for use by the opposite sex; Subd. 13. Weapons and fireworks. Without a state permit, bring any firearms, air rifle, BB gun, sling shot, explosives, fireworks or devices capable of discharging blank ammunition into any park; Subd. 14. Use of toys and equipment. Ride, propel or use any equipment or toy in any public park in a manner as to interfere with or endanger any pedestrian; Subd. 15. Improper conduct. Appear nude, commit any nuisance or use threatening, abusive, insulting, obscene or indecent language or act in an indecent, lascivious or improper manner or do any act which constitutes a breach of the public peace; Subd. 16. Harassment. Harass any visitor or behave in a reckless manner which would endanger any visitor's property; Subd. 17. Disobey city officials. Disobey any reasonable order or direction of any city employee, law enforcement officer or other person designated by the City Council or Park Commission to give the orders or directions. (1987 Code, § 902.02) (Ord. 140, passed 2-14-1983; Ord. 266, passed 1-25-1993) 902.03 ANIMALS IN PARK AND RECREATION AREAS. No person in a city park or recreation area shall: Subd. 1. Kill, trap, hunt, pursue or in any manner disturb or cause to be disturbed any wildlife; Subd. 2. Bring any dog, cat or other animal unless caged or kept on a leash not more than six feet in length; Subd. 3. Permit any animal to disturb, harass or interfere with or endanger any visitor or visitor's property or tether any creature to a tree, plant, building or park equipment; Subd. 4. Permit any animal to enter unauthorized areas. Unauthorized areas are active play areas, picnic areas and park buildings; Subd. 5. Release any insect, fish, animal or other wildlife or introduce any plant, chemical or other agent potentially harmful to the vegetation, water supply or wildlife of the area; Subd. 6. Ride a horse, except with prior approval from the city; Subd. 7. Permit any domestic animal to defecate in or upon public property. The owner or person having the custody or control of the animal shall be responsible for immediately cleaning up any feces of the animal and disposing of the feces in a sanitary manner. (1987 Code, § 902.03) (Ord. 140, passed 2-14-1983; Ord. 334, passed 4-27-1998) American Legal Publishing Corp. 29 Shorewood, MN Code of Ordinances 902.04 VEHICLE RESTRICTIONS. Except police officers or duly authorized and uniformed snow patrol personnel in performance of their duties, no person in a city park or recreation area shall: Subd. 1. Drive or park a vehicle, except an authorized or emergency vehicle, on any turf or other area not designated for parking or travel; Subd. 2. Wash, grease, dismantle, repair, change or deposit the oil of a vehicle anywhere in a park or recreation area; Subd. 3. Operate a motorized vehicle except on marked trails during times designated by the City Council and/or Park Commission; Subd. 4. Operate any watercraft within designated swimming areas; Subd. 5. Operate a motorized vehicle in excess of 15 miles per hour; Subd. 6. This section does not prohibit the operation of any manual or motorized wheelchair as defined by M.S. § 169.01, subd. 24A. (1987 Code, § 902.04) (Ord. 246, passed 10-28-1991; Ord. 294, passed 9-12-1994; Ord. 364, passed 6-26-2000) 902.05 ADDITIONAL RULES FOR USE OF PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES. The following are additional rules pertaining to the use of public tennis courts, use of waters located in city parks and use of public skating rinks. Subd. 1. Public tennis courts. No person shall: a. Be allowed on any tennis courts while wearing street shoes; b. Be allowed to make use of the tennis courts except for playing tennis; C. Use a tennis court for longer than 60 minutes when other tennis players are waiting to use the tennis court. Subd. 2. Swimming in park waters. a. No person shall swim except at designated areas; b. No person shall swim beyond buoys marking the limits of the swimming area; C. No child under ten years of age shall be allowed at a designated swimming area without competent supervision; d. Any person swimming at a public beach when a lifeguard is off duty swims at his or her own risk. Subd. 3. Public skating rinks. a. Skating areas shall be posted for "hockey" or "free skating;" b. No hockey sticks or pucks shall be allowed in the "free skating" area. (1987 Code, § 902.05) (Ord. 140, passed 2-14-1983; Am. Ord. 164, passed 3-11-1985) Penalty, see § 104.01 902.06 USE OF RECREATIONAL FACILITIES BY ATHLETIC ASSOCIATIONS. Subd. 1. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to provide for an orderly method of the use of public recreational facilities in the city and to insure that the use by participants is with the American Legal Publishing Corp. 30 Shorewood, MN Code of Ordinances required safety equipment and permitting the city to recover a portion of the cost of maintenance of the facilities. Subd. 2. Authority to contract for use. The city is authorized to enter a contract providing for the exclusive use of its recreational facilities for set periods of time with athletic associations and other nonprofit groups; provided, that the use does not entirely exclude the general public from making use of the facilities. Subd. 3. Fees. The City Council is authorized to determine an appropriate fee to be charged for exclusive use, which fees shall be used solely for development and maintenance of the parks and recreational facilities of the city. All sports organizations that make exclusive use of recreational facilities in Shorewood shall pay a fee as specified in Chapter 1301 of this code to compensate for their exclusive use of these recreational facilities. Subd. 4. Insurance required. As a condition for exclusive use, the athletic association or other group shall be required to provide the city with copies of insurance policies covering medical and accident insurance for participants. Subd. 5. Conditions of contract. a. Safety equipment. It shall be the responsibility of the sponsoring athletic organizations to require participants under the age of 19 to wear proper protective equipment. b. Additional conditions. The contract shall contain the other provisions as the City Council deems necessary for the protection of the participants and the public interest. Subd. 6. Prohibited acts and conditions. a. It shall be unlawful for any person, group or athletic association to use park facilities in the city for athletic events scheduled by the association without the association having previously entered into a contract with the city for use of the park facility. b. The general public shall not be allowed to use or occupy any athletic field, rink or area during those times the field, rink or area is scheduled for authorized use by the athletic associations. Any person who shall violate this subsection shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor. Subd. 7. Violation. Unless otherwise provided for herein, any person who shall violate any of the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a petty misdemeanor. (1987 Code, § 902.06) (Ord. 12, passed 10-6-1980; Ord. 123, passed 10-6-1980; Ord. 140, passed 2-14-1983; Ord. 310, passed 2-12-1996; Am. Ord. 365, passed 8-14-2000) Penalty, see § 104.01 902.07 DISCRIMINATION IN PARKS. No person involved in any event or in any use of the parks or recreation areas, including, but not limited to, sponsors of teams, shall deny another person access to, admission to, utilization of or benefit from any event or use because of race, age, sex, color, creed, religion or national origin. (1987 Code, § 902.07) American Legal Publishing Corp. 31 Shorewood, MN Code of Ordinances 902.08 INSPECTIONS FOR AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES. Subd. 1. Purpose and intent. The city finds that the uncontrolled spread of aquatic invasive species ("AIS") poses an imminent and irrevocable threat to the water resources, property values, enjoyment and habitability of the community. Pursuant to M.S. Chapter 841), the city has adopted mandatory inspection of AIS as a reasonable measure to contain the spread of AIS within the community. Subd. 2. Compliance mandatory inspection. The city does hereby require inspection of water -related equipment for prohibited aquatic invasive species, as defined in Minn. Rules Part 6216.0250, prior to entering public waters of the state within the corporate limits of the city. A person who fails to comply with the mandatory inspection of water -related equipment, as provided by this section adopted in compliance with M.S. § 84D.105, and introduces water -related equipment at the point of public access to public waters shall be guilty of a misdemeanor subject to the penal provisions set forth in M.S. § 609.02. (Ord. 495, passed 6-11-2013) 902.09 APPLICATION OF PROVISIONS TO CITY EMPLOYEES. Nothing in this chapter shall prevent city employees, including law enforcement officers, from performing their assigned duties. (1987 Code, § 902.08) 902.10 ADMINISTRATIVE RULES AND REGULATIONS. The City Council shall have the right to issue additional administrative rules and regulations relative to, but not conflicting with, this chapter. No person shall violate the rules or regulations, and any violation may be subject to the penalties of this chapter. (1987 Code, § 902.09) 902.11 VIOLATION. Any person who shall violate any provisions of this chapter shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, unless otherwise specified. (1987 Code, § 902.10) (Ord. 140, passed 2-14-1983) Penalty, see § 104.01 American Legal Publishing Corp. 32 Shorewood, MN Code of Ordinances CHAPTER 611 SNOWMOBILES Section 611.01 Definitions 611.02 Operation generally 611.03 Manner of operation 611.04 Equipment 611.05 Application of other laws 611.06 Persons under certain age 611.07 Leaving snowmobile unattended 611.08 Chasing animals forbidden 611.09 Littering and obstructions 611.10 Violations 611.01 DEFINITIONS. For the purpose of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply unless the context clearly indicates or requires a different meaning. BOULEVARD. That portion of a street right-of-way not occupied by pavement. LRT RIGHT-OF-WAY. That portion of the Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority right-of-way within the City of Shorewood commencing on the east at the City of Excelsior corporate boundary and extending west to the City of Victoria corporate boundary. LRT TRAIL. That portion of the LRT right-of-way maintained for the use of the public for nonvehicular purposes. OPERATE. To ride in or on and control the operation of a snowmobile. OPERATOR. Every person who operates or is in actual physical control of a snowmobile. ORGANIZED EVENT. An event sponsored and conducted by the Park Commission, the Chamber of Commerce, Jaycees, American Legion or similar Council -recognized civic groups or associations. OWNER. A person, other than a lienholder, having the property in or title to a snowmobile and entitled to the use or possession thereof. PERSON. Includes an individual, partnership, corporation and any body of persons, whether incorporated or not, the State of Minnesota and its agencies and political subdivisions, except this definition does not include police officers or duly authorized and uninformed snow patrol personnel in the performance of their duties. PLOW RIDGE. The bank of snow remaining at the side of the road after the plow has passed. RIGHT-OF-WAY. Any property established for the use of the public for street or highway purposes by any federal, state, county or local government, by dedication, gift or statutory use, whether developed or undeveloped, paved or unpaved. American Legal Publishing Corp. 33 Shorewood. MN Code of Ordinances SAFETY or DEADMAN THROTTLE. A device which, when pressure is removed from the engine accelerator or throttle, causes the motor to be disengaged from the driving track. SNOWMOBILE. A self-propelled vehicle designed for travel on snow or ice or natural terrain steered by skis or runners. STREET or HIGHWAY. The entire width between boundary lines of any right-of-way or place when any part thereof is open to the use of the public, as a matter of right, for the movement of vehicular traffic. (1987 Code, § 802.01) 611.02 OPERATION GENERALLY. Subd. 1. A person may operate a snowmobile within the corporate limits of the city in only the following locations: a. Public waters as permitted by resolution of the LMCD or Shorewood City Council, but not closer than 150 feet to the shoreline except when entering or exiting the public waters traveling in a line perpendicular to the shoreline; b. On private property with the express permission of the property owner; C. On a right-of-way subject to the limitations set forth in this section; d. Such other locations and times as designated by resolution of the City Council for supervised training; e. A person operating a snowmobile in any part of the City of Shorewood except as provided herein shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Subd. 2. No person shall operate a snowmobile upon the roadway of any street or highway except for the purpose of direct travel from the person's home to the closest destination where snowmobiling is permitted by the shortest possible route and then only if travel on the adjacent street or highway right-of-way is restricted because of developed yards or physical barriers. Subd. 3. Persons may operate a snowmobile on the street side of the plow ridge and avoid obstacles by going into the street, not onto the boulevard. While traveling on streets, snowmobiles shall drive in the direction of traffic. Subd. 4. No person shall operate a snowmobile on the LRT trail or within the LRT right-of-way. Subd. 5. A snowmobile may make a direct crossing of a street or highway provided: a. The crossing is made at an angle of approximately 90 degrees to the direction of the street or highway and at a place where no obstruction prevents a quick and safe crossing; b. The snowmobile is brought to a complete stop before crossing the shoulder or main traveled way of the highway; C. The operator of the snowmobile must yield the right-of-way to all oncoming traffic; d. In crossing a divided street or highway, the crossing is made at an intersection of such street or highway with another public street or highway; e. The crossing is made with both front and rear lights illuminated. Subd. 6. Where no special hazard exists, the following speeds shall be lawful, and any speeds in excess shall be deemed unlawful: a. 10 miles per hour on public property within the city; American Legal Publishing Corp. 34 Shorewood, MN Code of Ordinances b. 10 miles per hour when operated on any public waters within the city closer than 150 feet to the shoreline. Subd. 7. No snowmobile shall enter any uncontrolled intersection without making a complete stop. The operator shall then yield the right-of-way to any vehicles or pedestrians. Subd. 8. Notwithstanding any prohibition in this chapter, a snowmobile may be operated on a public thoroughfare in an emergency during the period of time when snow upon such thoroughfare renders travel by automobile impractical. Subd. 9. An operator shall bring the snowmobile to a stop and switch off the engine when flagged by a police officer or duly authorized uniformed snow patrol member. (1987 Code, § 802.02) (Ord. 358, passed 10-25-1999) 611.03 MANNER OF OPERATION. Except as otherwise specifically permitted and authorized, it is unlawful for any person to operate a snowmobile within the limits of the city in the following manner: Subd. 1. At any place while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or narcotics or habit forming drugs; Subd. 2. At a rate of speed greater than reasonable or proper under all the surrounding circumstances. Racing is prohibited except as may be specifically authorized as part of an organized event, which authorization shall be by permit issued by the City Council. Maximum speed limits shall be set from time to time by Council resolution; Subd. 3. At any place in a careless, reckless or negligent manner so as to endanger the person or property of another or to cause injury or damage thereto; Subd. 4. So as to tow any person or thing except through use of a rigid tow bar attached to the rear of the snowmobile; Subd. 5. When the noise level of the snowmobile exceeds 78 decibels on the A Scale at a distance of 50 feet from the snowmobile; Subd. 6. At anytime within the city between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on Friday and Saturday, and between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on Sunday through Thursday; Subd. 7. At any time between the first of April and the thirtieth of November; Subd. 8. Abreast of another snowmobile except when overtaking and passing another snowmobile. No passing shall be allowed if a pedestrian is within 30 feet of the snowmobile; Subd. 9. On the LRT Trail. (1987 Code, § 802.03) (Ord. 358, passed 10-25-1999) Penalty, see § 104.01 611.04 EQUIPMENT. It is unlawful for any person to operate or for the owner to cause or knowingly permit the operation of a snowmobile any place within the limits of the city unless it is equipped with the following: Subd. 1. Standard mufflers which are properly attached and in constant operation and which reduce the noise of operation of the motor to the minimum necessary for operation. Mufflers shall comply with Minn. Rules part 6100.5700, subp. 5 which certifies that a new American Legal Publishing Corp. 35 Shorewood. MN Code of Ordinances snowmobile complies with the noise limitation requirements of this rule. A manufacturer shall make such a certification based on measurements made in accordance with the SAE Recommended Practice J 192(a) as set forth in the Report of the Vehicle Sound Level Committee, as approved by the Society of Automotive Engineers, September 1970 and revised November 1973; Subd. 2. Brakes adequate to control the movement of and to stop and hold the snowmobile under any conditions of operation; Subd. 3. A safety or deadman throttle in operating condition; Subd. 4. At least one clear lamp attached to the front, with sufficient intensity to reveal persons and vehicles at a distance of at least 100 feet ahead during the hours of darkness under normal atmospheric conditions. Such head lamp shall be so aimed that glaring rays are not projected into the eyes of an oncoming vehicle operator. It shall also be equipped with at least one red tail lamp having a minimum candle power of sufficient intensity to exhibit a red light plainly visible from a distance of 500 feet to the rear during the hours of darkness under normal atmospheric conditions. The lighting equipment shall be illuminated at all times the vehicle is operated; Subd. 5. Reflective material at least 16 square inches on each side, forward of the handlebars, so as to reflect or beam light at a 90 degree angle. (1987 Code, § 802.04) Penalty, see § 104.01 611.05 APPLICATION OF OTHER LAWS. City traffic ordinances shall apply to the operation of snowmobiles upon streets and highways and M.S. §§ 84.81 to 84.88 and M.S. Chapter 169, as amended, and except for those provisions relating to required equipment, are adopted by reference. (1987 Code, § 802.05) 611.06 PERSONS UNDER CERTAIN AGE. Subd. 1. It is unlawful for any person under 14 years of age to operate on streets, highways, public lands or frozen water or make a direct crossing of a street or highway as the operator of a snowmobile unless accompanied by a parent or guardian. A person 14 years of age or older, but less than 18 years of age, may operate a snowmobile on streets, highway, public lands or frozen waters as permitted under this section and make a direct crossing of a street or highway only if he or she has in his or her immediate possession a valid snowmobile safety certificate issued by the Commissioner of Natural Resources. Subd. 2. It is unlawful for the owner of a snowmobile to permit the snowmobile to be operated contrary to the provisions of this section. (1987 Code, § 802.06) Penalty, see § 104.01 611.07 LEAVING SNOWMOBILE UNATTENDED. American Legal Publishing Corp. 36 Shorewood, MN Code of Ordinances Every person leaving a snowmobile in a public place shall lock the ignition and remove the key from the snowmobile. (1987 Code, § 802.07) 611.08 CHASING ANIMALS FORBIDDEN. It is unlawful to intentionally drive, chase, run over or kill any animal, wild or domestic, with a snowmobile. (1987 Code, § 802.08) Penalty, see § 104.01 611.09 LITTERING AND OBSTRUCTIONS. Subd. 1. No person shall deposit paper, litter, rubbish or debris on public or private property or throw paper, litter, rubbish or debris from snowmobiles. Subd. 2. No person shall place obstructions, including ice blocks, on publicly -owned lands or frozen waters so as to interfere with the lawful use thereof by the public. Subd. 3. All traffic control devices used for routing snowmobile traffic away from private and public property shall be located on the same private or public property and shall be in place no earlier than November 1 and shall be removed on or before April 15. (1987 Code, § 802.09) 611.10 VIOLATIONS. Any person violating the provisions of this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor. (1987 Code, § 802.10) (Ord. 245, passed 10-28-1991; Ord. 280, passed 10-11-1993; Ord. 296, passed 1-23-1995; Ord. 314, passed 10-14-1996) Penalty, see § 104.01 American Legal Publishing Corp. 37 CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 Country Club Road e Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 9952-960-7900 Fax: 952-474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mmus • cityhallgci.shorewood.mmus To: Park Commission/Planning Commission and City Council From: Marie Darling, Planning Director Meeting Date: January 15, 2019 Re: Fire Lane Usage Attachments: Chapter 1201.03 Subd. 19 Zoning Map with fire lanes identified Chapter 902 of City Code, Public Parks and Recreation Areas Chapter 611 of City Code, Snowmobile Adjacent City's Codes Fire Lane Photos Correspondence Received At the January 31, 2018 City Council meeting, a resident spoke at "Matters from the Floor" and requested that the City Council consider allowing small vehicles (snowmobile, four -wheelers, etc.) the ability to access Lake Minnetonka through Fire Lane 3. His request was spurred after an adjacent property owner put up a sign which indicated correctly that no motorized vehicles are permitted to use Fire Lane 3. At a worksession on February 12, 2018, some members of the City Council thought they would be willing to consider amendments to allow limited vehicle access in some fire lanes and suggested adding another classification of fire lanes to allow vehicle access without allowing parking or swimming that is allowed for Fire Lane 6. Only a couple of residents were at the meeting. Some were in favor of snowmobile access but not trucks or larger vehicles. Also, as part of the public input on the Comprehensive Plan Update last year, the City undertook a survey of resident priorities. As part of the open -answered questions, several residents responded that they felt the residents needed greater public access to the lakes and/or more lake - oriented facilities like kayak storage, a public boat launch, etc. What are the Fire Lanes? The fire lanes were land originally dedicated to the public to allow pumper fire trucks to access lake water to fight fires. The fire lanes are no longer needed for water access for firefighting, instead for an increasing amount of demand for public lake access. The 10 fire lanes all serve as public lake access. There are six on Lake Minnetonka and four on Lake William. Many of the fire lanes are hard to spot and are known mostly to the adjacent property owners. Two of the more well-known and well -used fire lanes are 3 (extension of Grant Lorenz) and 6 (adjacent to Crescent Beach). Over time, private improvements have begun to creep into the fire lanes, such as retaining walls and temporary winter storage of docks. Has the City ever studied them before? In 1956, the City adopted an ordinance that prohibited parking on or blocking any of the fire "alleys". Any vehicle use on the fire lane was considered blocking and any boat tied up to the fire lane was also considered blocking. In 1977, the City adopted an ordinance that prohibited driving any vehicle on park land except designated parking area and trails. These regulations were also applied to the fire lanes. In 1985, the City adopted most of the current regulations as part of the adoption of a complete update of the zoning regulations. The fire lane regulations were studied for about two -years with extensive resident input. The discussion was spurred by complaints that residents were: 1) tying their boats near the shore, 2) parking trucks and trailers in the fire lanes, 3) constructing docks and other improvements in or near the fire lanes, 4) engaging in loud, disruptive behavior in and near the fire lanes, etc. When City staff began notifying users that vehicle access was not permitted on the fire lanes, requests for expanding/reducing public access to the lake were subsequently received. The fire lane regulations were subsequently amended in 1999 and 2011 to add or alter the general regulations. What does City Code allow? The City Code currently does not allow use of the fire lanes by any motorized vehicles, except for the fire lane directly adjacent to Crescent Beach. The City of Shorewood allows that fire lane to be used for snowmobile access in the winter and parking of vehicles near the beach. No other fire lane allows vehicle access to a lake. All park and recreational areas (including fire lanes) are not allowed to be accessed between 10:30 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. except for organized activities sponsored by the City of Shorewood. Chapter 611.03 of City Code prohibits snowmobile use anywhere between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7 a.m. Sunday through Thursday and between 11:00 p.m. and 7 a.m. on Friday and Saturday. Chapter 611.02 limits speeds up to 10 mph on public property. What do other cities allow? While there is no pressure to change Shorewood regulations based on what other cities' ordinances allow or don't allow, they offer insights and ideas. A quick survey of whether other cities regulations allow motor vehicles is noted below. The cities that allow any motorized vehicles, even if limited to one fire lane and/or one type of vehicle, are included in the "Allow" column. city Shorewood Allow Vehicles Prohibit Vehicles Excelsior Minnetonka Beach Mound Tonka Bay Wayzata Of those cities that allow vehicles, most restrict vehicles to certain classifications of fire lanes and limit the access to certain types of vehicles. The Wayzata ordinance (attached) pertains only to snowmobiles. The City of Mound has no specific code language regulating Fire Lanes, but most of their fire lanes allow winter snowmobile access. What are the questions to be answered? Based on the direction of the discussion, staff would write up draft ordinances to be reviewed by both commissions at separate meetings. These ordinance may include: • an allowance for specific motorized vehicles • reduced hours of operation • reduced speed limits • other issues as directed The commissions may also discuss other elements of fire lane management to increase visibility and use and to allow the type of access recommended (pedestrian, vehicle, etc.) • surveying the fire lanes and installing markers/informational signs • install vehicle barriers (where appropriate) • clear vegetation and any private improvements that have crept onto the public lands Chapter 1201.03 of the Shorewood City Code Subd. 19. Fire lanes. a. Purpose. Recognizing that all fire lanes are to provide lake access to the public, this subdivision is established to identify, classify and regulate the use thereof based upon their historic use within the city. b. Use classifications. The use of fire lanes in Shorewood shall be restricted to one of the following classifications.- (1) Class I may be used for pedestrian access to the lake, fishing from shore, launching canoes and other small boats not requiring a trailer and cross-country skiing; (2) Class II may be used for all of the activities as designated in Class I except fishing, as well as snowmobile access during the winter, parking and swimming; (3) Class III may be used only for pedestrian access to the lake, fishing, launching canoes and other small boats not requiring a trailer. In addition, a single dock may be installed subject to the following: (a) The person or group of persons installing the dock shall be Shorewood residents and apply for an annual building permit prior to installation of the dock; (b) The total length of the dock shall not exceed 25 feet; (c) The dock shall be installed by a professional installer and maintained in a safe and workmanlike manner; (d) The use of the dock shall be for the general public and shall not be limited to use by those who install it, (e) Docking of boats shall be limited to daytime hours only between sunrise and sunset; (f) The dock shall comply with all requirements of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District. C. Designation of fire lanes. The following fire lanes shall be identified on the Official Zoning Map and shall be classified as follows: (1) Class 1: 1-Enchanted Island, 2-Shady Island, 3-Grant Lorenze, 4-Third Street, 7-Ferncroft, 8-Ivy Lane, 9-Rustic Way South, 10-Rustic Way North; (2) Class II: 6-Crescent Beach; (3) Class III: 5-Eureka. d. General regulations. (1) Fire lanes shall be used only for the activities provided for in subdivision b above. No sporting activities shall be allowed which involve thrown objects such as catch, softball, baseball, frisbee, volleyball or football. (2) Fire lanes shall be subject to the rules and regulations contained in Shorewood Ordinance 140, as may be amended, (Chapter 902) pertaining to the use of city parks, including, but not limited to, use of intoxicating beverages. (3) Maintenance and improvements of fire lanes shall be the sole responsibility of the city. No one shall maintain or make improvements, except as modified herein, without the approval of the City Administrator/Clerk or his or her agent. (4) Except in Class II fire lanes, there shall be no parking of automobiles, boat trailers or snowmobiles on or adjacent to any of the fire lanes identified herein. (5) Except for snowmobiles in Class II fire lanes, motorized vehicles shall be prohibited on fire lanes. (6) Lots with side yards abutting fire lanes shall provide a total of 30 feet of side yard setback with no one side being less than ten feet. U U H U U a T S S = m o a VL N O L O � O x V A z O o O N WJ c C) k. O Y O O Ni W^^ W i N O (21 •O LLl Cu M c�B Q_ N C] W 0— 0�Z LU _' -,El cl) u � � .0 B L O O U ,U L Q) U Q) co � N IU U k� ® 1I I a a a O O a O O O O O O O O O O O O L M O O O O N O L O O O L U i LT L cq v) v) I z O' a a a a O O O O ca LLI- N N 0 05 C/) C/) C o~ r N LU Q m U C] IZI q F—I F] 1-11:1 Shorewood, MN Code of Ordinances CHAPTER 902 PUBLIC PARKS AND RECREATION AREAS Section 902.01 Purpose 902.02 General regulations and rules of conduct 902.03 Animals in park and recreation areas 902.04 Vehicle restrictions 902.05 Additional rules for use of park and recreation facilities 902.06 Use of recreational facilities by athletic associations 902.07 Discrimination in parks 902.08 Inspections for aquatic invasive species 902.09 Application of provisions to city employees 902.10 Administrative rules and regulations 902.11 Violation 902.01 PURPOSE. The purpose of this chapter is to regulate the use of and to provide uniform rules of conduct for city parks and recreational areas in the city. (1987 Code, § 902.01) 902.02 GENERAL REGULATIONS AND RULES OF CONDUCT. No person in a city park or recreation area shall: Subd. 1. Closing hours. Enter or remain in any park between the hours of 10:30 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. unless the person is participating in an organized activity authorized by the city; Subd. 2. Overnight use. Set up any tent, shack or other temporary shelter in any park, nor shall any person leave any property, including, but not limited to, vehicles, campers and trailers in any park between the hours of 10:30 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. without the written permission of the City Administrator/Clerk; Subd. 3. Tampering with city property. Deface, destroy, tamper with, injure or remove any city property, including, but not limited to furniture, structures, vegetation, signs or soils; Subd. 4. Littering. Scatter or litter the grounds or any lake, pond or watercourse within or draining into a park with any form of trash, but shall place the material in the proper receptacles where these are provided. Where receptacles are not provided, all the trash shall be carried away from the area by the person responsible for its presence; Subd. 5. Fires. Start a fire, except a small fire for cooking purposes in a designated area and then only in a fire ring, grill or portable stove or fail to fully extinguish a fire; Subd. 6. Sales. Sell or conduct any commercial enterprise unless authorized by written permit from the City Council; American Legal Publishing Corp. 28 Shorewood, MN Code of Ordinances Subd. 7. Handbills and advertisements. Paste, affix or inscribe any handbill, poster or sign or distribute handbills, circulars or announcements of any kind for a commercial purpose, unless authorized by written permit from the City Council; Subd.8. Gamble; Subd. 9. Liquor. Use or bring alcoholic beverages, including beer; Subd. 10. Drugs. Use or bring illegal drugs; Subd. 11. Glass containers. Bring any glass containers; Subd. 12. Use of restrooms. If over five years of age, use any restroom or washroom designated for use by the opposite sex; Subd. 13. Weapons and fireworks. Without a state permit, bring any firearms, air rifle, BB gun, sling shot, explosives, fireworks or devices capable of discharging blank ammunition into any park; Subd. 14. Use of toys and equipment. Ride, propel or use any equipment or toy in any public park in a manner as to interfere with or endanger any pedestrian; Subd. 15. Improper conduct. Appear nude, commit any nuisance or use threatening, abusive, insulting, obscene or indecent language or act in an indecent, lascivious or improper manner or do any act which constitutes a breach of the public peace; Subd. 16. Harassment. Harass any visitor or behave in a reckless manner which would endanger any visitor's property; Subd. 17. Disobey city officials. Disobey any reasonable order or direction of any city employee, law enforcement officer or other person designated by the City Council or Park Commission to give the orders or directions. (1987 Code, § 902.02) (Ord. 140, passed 2-14-1983; Ord. 266, passed 1-25-1993) 902.03 ANIMALS IN PARK AND RECREATION AREAS. No person in a city park or recreation area shall: Subd. 1. Kill, trap, hunt, pursue or in any manner disturb or cause to be disturbed any wildlife; Subd. 2. Bring any dog, cat or other animal unless caged or kept on a leash not more than six feet in length; Subd. 3. Permit any animal to disturb, harass or interfere with or endanger any visitor or visitor's property or tether any creature to a tree, plant, building or park equipment; Subd. 4. Permit any animal to enter unauthorized areas. Unauthorized areas are active play areas, picnic areas and park buildings; Subd. 5. Release any insect, fish, animal or other wildlife or introduce any plant, chemical or other agent potentially harmful to the vegetation, water supply or wildlife of the area; Subd. 6. Ride a horse, except with prior approval from the city; Subd. 7. Permit any domestic animal to defecate in or upon public property. The owner or person having the custody or control of the animal shall be responsible for immediately cleaning up any feces of the animal and disposing of the feces in a sanitary manner. (1987 Code, § 902.03) (Ord. 140, passed 2-14-1983; Ord. 334, passed 4-27-1998) American Legal Publishing Corp. 29 Shorewood, MN Code of Ordinances 902.04 VEHICLE RESTRICTIONS. Except police officers or duly authorized and uniformed snow patrol personnel in performance of their duties, no person in a city park or recreation area shall: Subd. 1. Drive or park a vehicle, except an authorized or emergency vehicle, on any turf or other area not designated for parking or travel; Subd. 2. Wash, grease, dismantle, repair, change or deposit the oil of a vehicle anywhere in a park or recreation area; Subd. 3. Operate a motorized vehicle except on marked trails during times designated by the City Council and/or Park Commission; Subd. 4. Operate any watercraft within designated swimming areas; Subd. 5. Operate a motorized vehicle in excess of 15 miles per hour; Subd. 6. This section does not prohibit the operation of any manual or motorized wheelchair as defined by M.S. § 169.01, subd. 24A. (1987 Code, § 902.04) (Ord. 246, passed 10-28-1991; Ord. 294, passed 9-12-1994; Ord. 364, passed 6-26-2000) 902.05 ADDITIONAL RULES FOR USE OF PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES. The following are additional rules pertaining to the use of public tennis courts, use of waters located in city parks and use of public skating rinks. Subd. 1. Public tennis courts. No person shall: a. Be allowed on any tennis courts while wearing street shoes; b. Be allowed to make use of the tennis courts except for playing tennis; C. Use a tennis court for longer than 60 minutes when other tennis players are waiting to use the tennis court. Subd. 2. Swimming in park waters. a. No person shall swim except at designated areas; b. No person shall swim beyond buoys marking the limits of the swimming area; C. No child under ten years of age shall be allowed at a designated swimming area without competent supervision; d. Any person swimming at a public beach when a lifeguard is off duty swims at his or her own risk. Subd. 3. Public skating rinks. a. Skating areas shall be posted for "hockey" or "free skating;" b. No hockey sticks or pucks shall be allowed in the "free skating" area. (1987 Code, § 902.05) (Ord. 140, passed 2-14-1983; Am. Ord. 164, passed 3-11-1985) Penalty, see § 104.01 902.06 USE OF RECREATIONAL FACILITIES BY ATHLETIC ASSOCIATIONS. Subd. 1. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to provide for an orderly method of the use of public recreational facilities in the city and to insure that the use by participants is with the American Legal Publishing Corp. 30 Shorewood, MN Code of Ordinances required safety equipment and permitting the city to recover a portion of the cost of maintenance of the facilities. Subd. 2. Authority to contract for use. The city is authorized to enter a contract providing for the exclusive use of its recreational facilities for set periods of time with athletic associations and other nonprofit groups; provided, that the use does not entirely exclude the general public from making use of the facilities. Subd. 3. Fees. The City Council is authorized to determine an appropriate fee to be charged for exclusive use, which fees shall be used solely for development and maintenance of the parks and recreational facilities of the city. All sports organizations that make exclusive use of recreational facilities in Shorewood shall pay a fee as specified in Chapter 1301 of this code to compensate for their exclusive use of these recreational facilities. Subd. 4. Insurance required. As a condition for exclusive use, the athletic association or other group shall be required to provide the city with copies of insurance policies covering medical and accident insurance for participants. Subd. 5. Conditions of contract. a. Safety equipment. It shall be the responsibility of the sponsoring athletic organizations to require participants under the age of 19 to wear proper protective equipment. b. Additional conditions. The contract shall contain the other provisions as the City Council deems necessary for the protection of the participants and the public interest. Subd. 6. Prohibited acts and conditions. a. It shall be unlawful for any person, group or athletic association to use park facilities in the city for athletic events scheduled by the association without the association having previously entered into a contract with the city for use of the park facility. b. The general public shall not be allowed to use or occupy any athletic field, rink or area during those times the field, rink or area is scheduled for authorized use by the athletic associations. Any person who shall violate this subsection shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor. Subd. 7. Violation. Unless otherwise provided for herein, any person who shall violate any of the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a petty misdemeanor. (1987 Code, § 902.06) (Ord. 12, passed 10-6-1980; Ord. 123, passed 10-6-1980; Ord. 140, passed 2-14-1983; Ord. 310, passed 2-12-1996; Am. Ord. 365, passed 8-14-2000) Penalty, see § 104.01 902.07 DISCRIMINATION IN PARKS. No person involved in any event or in any use of the parks or recreation areas, including, but not limited to, sponsors of teams, shall deny another person access to, admission to, utilization of or benefit from any event or use because of race, age, sex, color, creed, religion or national origin. (1987 Code, § 902.07) American Legal Publishing Corp. 31 Shorewood, MN Code of Ordinances 902.08 INSPECTIONS FOR AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES. Subd. 1. Purpose and intent. The city finds that the uncontrolled spread of aquatic invasive species ("AIS") poses an imminent and irrevocable threat to the water resources, property values, enjoyment and habitability of the community. Pursuant to M.S. Chapter 841), the city has adopted mandatory inspection of AIS as a reasonable measure to contain the spread of AIS within the community. Subd. 2. Compliance mandatory inspection. The city does hereby require inspection of water -related equipment for prohibited aquatic invasive species, as defined in Minn. Rules Part 6216.0250, prior to entering public waters of the state within the corporate limits of the city. A person who fails to comply with the mandatory inspection of water -related equipment, as provided by this section adopted in compliance with M.S. § 841).105, and introduces water -related equipment at the point of public access to public waters shall be guilty of a misdemeanor subject to the penal provisions set forth in M.S. § 609.02. (Ord. 495, passed 6-11-2013) 902.09 APPLICATION OF PROVISIONS TO CITY EMPLOYEES. Nothing in this chapter shall prevent city employees, including law enforcement officers, from performing their assigned duties. (1987 Code, § 902.08) 902.10 ADMINISTRATIVE RULES AND REGULATIONS. The City Council shall have the right to issue additional administrative rules and regulations relative to, but not conflicting with, this chapter. No person shall violate the rules or regulations, and any violation may be subject to the penalties of this chapter. (1987 Code, § 902.09) 902.11 VIOLATION. Any person who shall violate any provisions of this chapter shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, unless otherwise specified. (1987 Code, § 902.10) (Ord. 140, passed 2-14-1983) Penalty, see § 104.01 American Legal Publishing Corp. 32 Shorewood, MN Code of Ordinances CHAPTER 611 SNOWMOBILES Section 611.01 Definitions 611.02 Operation generally 611.03 Manner of operation 611.04 Equipment 611.05 Application of other laws 611.06 Persons under certain age 611.07 Leaving snowmobile unattended 611.08 Chasing animals forbidden 611.09 Littering and obstructions 611.10 Violations 611.01 DEFINITIONS. For the purpose of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply unless the context clearly indicates or requires a different meaning. BOULEVARD. That portion of a street right-of-way not occupied by pavement. LRT RIGHT-OF-WAY. That portion of the Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority right-of-way within the City of Shorewood commencing on the east at the City of Excelsior corporate boundary and extending west to the City of Victoria corporate boundary. LRT TRAIL. That portion of the LRT right-of-way maintained for the use of the public for nonvehicular purposes. OPERATE. To ride in or on and control the operation of a snowmobile. OPERATOR. Every person who operates or is in actual physical control of a snowmobile. ORGANIZED EVENT. An event sponsored and conducted by the Park Commission, the Chamber of Commerce, Jaycees, American Legion or similar Council -recognized civic groups or associations. OWNER. A person, other than a lienholder, having the property in or title to a snowmobile and entitled to the use or possession thereof. PERSON. Includes an individual, partnership, corporation and any body of persons, whether incorporated or not, the State of Minnesota and its agencies and political subdivisions, except this definition does not include police officers or duly authorized and uninformed snow patrol personnel in the performance of their duties. PLOW RIDGE. The bank of snow remaining at the side of the road after the plow has passed. RIGHT-OF-WAY. Any property established for the use of the public for street or highway purposes by any federal, state, county or local government, by dedication, gift or statutory use, whether developed or undeveloped, paved or unpaved. American Legal Publishing Corp. 33 Shorewood, MN Code of Ordinances SAFETY or DEADNIAN THROTTLE. A device which, when pressure is removed from the engine accelerator or throttle, causes the motor to be disengaged from the driving track. SNOWMOBILE. A self-propelled vehicle designed for travel on snow or ice or natural terrain steered by skis or runners. STREET or HIGHWAY. The entire width between boundary lines of any right-of-way or place when any part thereof is open to the use of the public, as a matter of right, for the movement of vehicular traffic. (1987 Code, § 802.01) 611.02 OPERATION GENERALLY. Subd. 1. A person may operate a snowmobile within the corporate limits of the city in only the following locations: a. Public waters as permitted by resolution of the LMCD or Shorewood City Council, but not closer than 150 feet to the shoreline except when entering or exiting the public waters traveling in a line perpendicular to the shoreline; b. On private property with the express permission of the property owner; C. On a right-of-way subject to the limitations set forth in this section; d. Such other locations and times as designated by resolution of the City Council for supervised training; e. A person operating a snowmobile in any part of the City of Shorewood except as provided herein shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Subd. 2. No person shall operate a snowmobile upon the roadway of any street or highway except for the purpose of direct travel from the person's home to the closest destination where snowmobiling is permitted by the shortest possible route and then only if travel on the adjacent street or highway right-of-way is restricted because of developed yards or physical barriers. Subd. 3. Persons may operate a snowmobile on the street side of the plow ridge and avoid obstacles by going into the street, not onto the boulevard. While traveling on streets, snowmobiles shall drive in the direction of traffic. Subd. 4. No person shall operate a snowmobile on the LRT trail or within the LRT right-of-way. Subd. 5. A snowmobile may make a direct crossing of a street or highway provided: a. The crossing is made at an angle of approximately 90 degrees to the direction of the street or highway and at a place where no obstruction prevents a quick and safe crossing; b. The snowmobile is brought to a complete stop before crossing the shoulder or main traveled way of the highway; C. The operator of the snowmobile must yield the right-of-way to all oncoming traffic; d. In crossing a divided street or highway, the crossing is made at an intersection of such street or highway with another public street or highway; e. The crossing is made with both front and rear lights illuminated. Subd. 6. Where no special hazard exists, the following speeds shall be lawful, and any speeds in excess shall be deemed unlawful: a. 10 miles per hour on public property within the city; American Legal Publishing Corp. 34 Shorewood, MN Code of Ordinances b. 10 miles per hour when operated on any public waters within the city closer than 150 feet to the shoreline. Subd. 7. No snowmobile shall enter any uncontrolled intersection without making a complete stop. The operator shall then yield the right-of-way to any vehicles or pedestrians. Subd. 8. Notwithstanding any prohibition in this chapter, a snowmobile may be operated on a public thoroughfare in an emergency during the period of time when snow upon such thoroughfare renders travel by automobile impractical. Subd. 9. An operator shall bring the snowmobile to a stop and switch off the engine when flagged by a police officer or duly authorized uniformed snow patrol member. (1987 Code, § 802.02) (Ord. 358, passed 10-25-1999) 611.03 MANNER OF OPERATION. Except as otherwise specifically permitted and authorized, it is unlawful for any person to operate a snowmobile within the limits of the city in the following manner: Subd. 1. At any place while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or narcotics or habit forming drugs; Subd. 2. At a rate of speed greater than reasonable or proper under all the surrounding circumstances. Racing is prohibited except as may be specifically authorized as part of an organized event, which authorization shall be by permit issued by the City Council. Maximum speed limits shall be set from time to time by Council resolution; Subd. 3. At any place in a careless, reckless or negligent manner so as to endanger the person or property of another or to cause injury or damage thereto; Subd. 4. So as to tow any person or thing except through use of a rigid tow bar attached to the rear of the snowmobile; Subd. 5. When the noise level of the snowmobile exceeds 78 decibels on the A Scale at a distance of 50 feet from the snowmobile; Subd. 6. At anytime within the city between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on Friday and Saturday, and between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on Sunday through Thursday; Subd. 7. At any time between the first of April and the thirtieth of November; Subd. 8. Abreast of another snowmobile except when overtaking and passing another snowmobile. No passing shall be allowed if a pedestrian is within 30 feet of the snowmobile; Subd. 9. On the LRT Trail. (1987 Code, § 802.03) (Ord. 358, passed 10-25-1999) Penalty, see § 104.01 611.04 EQUIPMENT. It is unlawful for any person to operate or for the owner to cause or knowingly permit the operation of a snowmobile any place within the limits of the city unless it is equipped with the following: Subd. 1. Standard mufflers which are properly attached and in constant operation and which reduce the noise of operation of the motor to the minimum necessary for operation. Mufflers shall comply with Minn. Rules part 6100.5700, subp. 5 which certifies that a new American Legal Publishing Corp. 35 Shorewood, MN Code of Ordinances snowmobile complies with the noise limitation requirements of this rule. A manufacturer shall make such a certification based on measurements made in accordance with the SAE Recommended Practice J192(a) as set forth in the Report of the Vehicle Sound Level Committee, as approved by the Society of Automotive Engineers, September 1970 and revised November 1973; Subd. 2. Brakes adequate to control the movement of and to stop and hold the snowmobile under any conditions of operation; Subd. 3. A safety or deadman throttle in operating condition; Subd. 4. At least one clear lamp attached to the front, with sufficient intensity to reveal persons and vehicles at a distance of at least 100 feet ahead during the hours of darkness under normal atmospheric conditions. Such head lamp shall be so aimed that glaring rays are not projected into the eyes of an oncoming vehicle operator. It shall also be equipped with at least one red tail lamp having a minimum candle power of sufficient intensity to exhibit a red light plainly visible from a distance of 500 feet to the rear during the hours of darkness under normal atmospheric conditions. The lighting equipment shall be illuminated at all times the vehicle is operated; Subd. 5. Reflective material at least 16 square inches on each side, forward of the handlebars, so as to reflect or beam light at a 90 degree angle. (1987 Code, § 802.04) Penalty, see § 104.01 611.05 APPLICATION OF OTHER LAWS. City traffic ordinances shall apply to the operation of snowmobiles upon streets and highways and M.S. §§ 84.81 to 84.88 and M.S. Chapter 169, as amended, and except for those provisions relating to required equipment, are adopted by reference. (1987 Code, § 802.05) 611.06 PERSONS UNDER CERTAIN AGE. Subd. 1. It is unlawful for any person under 14 years of age to operate on streets, highways, public lands or frozen water or make a direct crossing of a street or highway as the operator of a snowmobile unless accompanied by a parent or guardian. A person 14 years of age or older, but less than 18 years of age, may operate a snowmobile on streets, highway, public lands or frozen waters as permitted under this section and make a direct crossing of a street or highway only if he or she has in his or her immediate possession a valid snowmobile safety certificate issued by the Commissioner of Natural Resources. Subd. 2. It is unlawful for the owner of a snowmobile to permit the snowmobile to be operated contrary to the provisions of this section. (1987 Code, § 802.06) Penalty, see § 104.01 611.07 LEAVING SNOWMOBILE UNATTENDED. American Legal Publishing Corp. 36 Shorewood, MN Code of Ordinances Every person leaving a snowmobile in a public place shall lock the ignition and remove the key from the snowmobile. (1987 Code, § 802.07) 611.08 CHASING ANIMALS FORBIDDEN. It is unlawful to intentionally drive, chase, run over or kill any animal, wild or domestic, with a snowmobile. (1987 Code, § 802.08) Penalty, see § 104.01 611.09 LITTERING AND OBSTRUCTIONS. Subd. 1. No person shall deposit paper, litter, rubbish or debris on public or private property or throw paper, litter, rubbish or debris from snowmobiles. Subd. 2. No person shall place obstructions, including ice blocks, on publicly -owned lands or frozen waters so as to interfere with the lawful use thereof by the public. Subd. 3. All traffic control devices used for routing snowmobile traffic away from private and public property shall be located on the same private or public property and shall be in place no earlier than November 1 and shall be removed on or before April 15. (1987 Code, § 802.09) 611.10 VIOLATIONS. Any person violating the provisions of this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor. (1987 Code, § 802.10) (Ord. 245, passed 10-28-1991; Ord. 280, passed 10-11-1993; Ord. 296, passed 1-23-1995; Ord. 314, passed 10-14-1996) Penalty, see § 104.01 American Legal Publishing Corp. 37 Excelsior, MN Code of Ordinances Page 1 of 1 Sec. 24-1. - Applicability of chapter provisions. This chapter shall apply to all public grounds owned by or under the control of this city, including the fire lanes designated in this section, but shall not apply to all other streets and the municipal parking lots. Such lands are listed, but not exclusively, as follows: (1) The Commons as shown on the original plat of the city and Cooley's Resurvey. (2) Excelsior Parkland. (3) The Captain Johnson Memorial at the intersection of Lake Street, Mill Street, and Water Street. (4) The Dr. Hugh C. Arey Memorial at the intersection of Water Street and County Road 19 (Oak Street). (5) College Lake. (6) City Hall. (7) Sewer, water, and street department property. (8) Cemetery. (9) South Lake Minnetonka Police Department Building. (10) St. Albans Bay bordering on Minnetonka Boulevard. (11) End of Water Street at Lake Minnetonka and public dock. (12) Historic fire lanes as follows: a. End of Lafayette Avenue at Lake Minnetonka; b. End of George Street at Lake Minnetonka; c. End of Third Street at Lake Minnetonka; d. End of Bell Street at Lake Minnetonka; e. End of Linwood at Lake Minnetonka; f. End of First Street at Lake Minnetonka; g. End of Hidden Lane at Lake Minnetonka; h. End of Hidden Lane (by boat marina); i. End of Elm Place at Galpin Lake; j. Linden Street. (Code 1982, § 230:00) about:blank 1/10/2019 Excelsior, MN Code of Ordinances Page 1 of 1 Sec. 24-2. - Historic fire lanes. (a) Intent. The intent of this chapter is to protect and maintain the public areas/fire lanes which provide access to area lakes for the benefit of all citizens of the city. (b) Alterations, uses, and categories of the public right-of-way. (1) No person or group may alter the terrain of any historic fire lane except for the following reasons: a. To maintain the existing ground cover (cutting the grass, weeding, etc.) b. To add new plantings to prevent erosion, after receiving an approved city permit. c. To enhance the public use, after receiving an approved city permit. (2) Storage of private property on any fire lane will be prohibited. (3) Because of their distinct character and suitability the historic fire lanes allow for pedestrian access to the lake, city boat slides, and launching of hand - carried water vessels. (4) No person shall operate a snowmobile/ATV on any historic fire lane, except as expressly allowed by section 32-207(b). (5) The hours of operation of the historic fire lanes shall be consistent with the hours of operation for The Commons. (Code 1982, § 230:03; Ord. No. 341, § 2, 12-17-2001) Cross reference— Fire prevention and protection, ch. 18. about:blank 1/10/2019 Excelsior, MN Code of Ordinances Page 1 of 1 Sec. 32-207. - Operation on roadways and public lands. (a) Snowmobiles/ATVs may be operated on roadways and public lands only as specified in this section. It is a misdemeanor to operate a snowmobile upon roadways or public lands: (1) At a rate of speed in excess of ten miles per hour. (2) Other than single file on a roadway. (3) Other than at the extreme right-hand side of a roadway. (4) On publicly owned land, including school land, park property, playgrounds, recreational areas, and fire lanes, with the exception of the following fire lanes for the purpose of going to and from the lake: a. The end of Water Street at Lake Minnetonka. b. The end of First Street at Lake Minnetonka, as designated by city - installed fencing. (b) Notwithstanding the prohibitions set forth in subsection (a) of this section to operating a snowmobile or ATV upon a roadway to the contrary, such operation is permitted but limited as follows: (1) From the owner's residence or place where the snowmobile/ATV is generally stored, in a direct route to and from a place of destination, provided such place is a place that such snowmobile/ATV operation may be lawfully operated. (2) In an emergency during the period of time when and at locations where snow (ten or more inches) upon the roadway renders travel by automobile impractical. (3) In any event only when such snowmobile or ATV is legally equipped and licensed by the state to operate as such on public roadways and highways. (Ord. No. 341, § 1(730:20, 730:25), 12-17-2001) Cross reference— Streets, sidewalks, and other public places, ch. 28. about:blank 1/10/2019 Minnetonka Beach City Code Sec. 513 Snowmobiles, All -Terrain Vehicles, Go -Carts, Motorized Dirt Bikes (8) Permission to Enter Private Property. No person while operating a snowmobile or ATV shall enter upon the lands of another unless and until permission is obtained from the owner or lessee, if there be one. (9) Public Lands. No person shall operate any motorized vehicle, including but not limited to, snowmobiles, ATV's, go-carts, or motorized foot scooters on any publicly owned lands, park property, public trails, playgrounds, recreation areas and golf courses, except fire lanes for snowmobiles and ATV access to and from the frozen lake or authorized maintenance, installation of city docks, law enforcement and emergency vehicles, in which case such use shall be lawful. Parking of snowmobiles or ATV's on public fire lanes is prohibited. (10) Prohibited in Areas Dangerous to Person or Property. No person shall drive a snowmobile or ATV within one hundred (100) feet of any person fishing, any fish house, shelter, pedestrian, skating rink or sliding area, or in any other area where such operation would conflict with use or endanger other persons or property in a manner that violates Minnesota, Hennepin County, Lake Minnetonka Conservation District or city statutes, regulations and ordinances. (11) Hours of Operation. No person shall operate a snowmobile or ATV except during daylight hours, unless the vehicle has the necessary and proper equipment to be operated at night and in no event shall a snowmobile or ATV be operated before 7:00 a.m. nor after 11:00 p.m. (12) Passengers and Towing. No person shall operate a snowmobile and no person shall ride as a passenger at any time when three (3) or more persons shall be upon such snowmobile provided, however, snowmobiles shall be allowed to tow. (13) Registration. No person shall operate a snowmobile or ATV, or Neighborhood Electric Vehicle which has not been registered as required by the State of Minnesota Statutes, or without registration numbers so assigned by the Department of Natural Resources securely fixed on each side of the forward half of the snowmobile in such position as to provide clear legibility for identification' provided however this provision shall not apply to the operation of a snowmobile on the private property of an owner by the owner or a member of his immediate family or to duly authorized police officers or other officers, employees or agents of political subdivisions of the State of Minnesota while in the performance of their duties. Ord. 90 — Amended Sec. 513 — Effective 6/17/ 2013 Ord. 61- Amended Sec. 513 — Effective 11/l/08 Section 513 - Page 5 of 5 Tonka Bay Subd. 4. A property maintenance agreement must be executed by the applicant and submitted to the City Attorney for review and approval. The agreement shall insure that the maintenance and upkeep of the structure and the lots to meet minimum City standards. The agreement must be filed with the Hennepin County Recorder's Office as a deed restriction against the title to each unit lot. Subd. 5. Separate public utility service shall be provided to each subdivided unit and shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. Subd.6. Subdivision is to be platted and recorded in conformance with the requirements of Section 1030 of this Code. 1011.19 FIRE LANES. Subd. 1. All fire lanes in the City shall be located, identified and the use thereof restricted to one of the following classifications as so designated on the official Zoning Map. All fire lanes are to provide lake access to the public. a. Class I shall be used for pedestrian access to the lake, fishing from shore, launching canoes and other small boats not requiring a trailer, no sporting activities. b. Class II can be used for all the activities as designated in Class I as well as snowmobile access during the winter. C. Class III shall only be used for the following: fishing from shore, winter vehicular access to the lake by vehicles not exceeding 10,000 pounds in weight, launching and retrieving of watercraft not exceeding twenty-seven feet (27') in length or exceeding ten thousand pounds (10,000) in weight. For purposes of this subdivision, length shall mean the horizontal measurement from the foremost to the aftermost points of the watercraft, including all equipment and attachments in their normal operation positions. (Amended August 8, 2013) d. Class IV 12-Hill (inaccessible) * These fire lanes shall be allowed to have winter vehicular traffic access to the lake as limited in Section 1011.20, Subd. 1(c). (Amended August 8, 2013) Subd. 2. The following fire lanes shall be classified as follows: a. Class 1.1-Crescent, 11-Pearl, 14-North Channel, 15-South Channel, 17- North Manitou, 2-Lake Place, 4-West Point, 6-North Sunrise, 7-South Sunrise, 9-Aspen, 10-Hazel, 16-Woodlawn, 19-Apgar, 20-North Brentwood, 21-South Brentwood. b. Class 11. 3-Interlachen, 8-South Waseca, 13-Woodpecker*, 18-Bay*. Class III. 5-North Waseca. 1011-43 d. Class IV. 12-Hill (inaccessible) • These fire lanes shall be allowed to have winter motor vehicular traffic access to the lake. Subd. 3. Unless permitted by the Zoning Administrator, no parking, private landscaping, or placement, erection, or encroachment of any structure shall be allowed in fire lanes. 1011.20 ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SYSTEMS Subd. 1. Wind Energy Conversion Systems (WECS). WECS are not permitted in the City of Tonka Bay. The City of Tonka Bay studied the use of WECS in 2017 and although the City is supportive of alternative energy systems, the City did not find WECS to be a viable use within the City of Tonka Bay at this time. Subd. 2. Solar Energy Systems (SES) a. Purpose. Regulations governing solar energy systems are established to provide for appropriate locations for solar energy systems, to ensure compatibility with surrounding uses, and to promote safe and effective use of solar energy to increase opportunities for generation of renewable energy. The City of Tonka Bay finds that it is in the public interest to encourage the use and development of renewable energy systems that enhance energy conservation efforts, but result in limited adverse impacts on nearby properties. As such, the City supports the use of solar energy systems. b. Permitted Uses and Specific Standards 1. In general. Solar energy systems shall be permitted in those zoning districts where permitted as an accessory use, subject to the standards of this article. Solar collector surfaces and all mounting devices shall comply with the minimum yard setback requirements of the zoning district in which they are located. Screening of solar collector surfaces shall not be required. 2. Building -mounted solar energy systems. a) Zoning district standards. i. Residential zoning districts. Notwithstanding the height limitations of the zoning district, building mounted solar energy systems shall not extend higher than three (3) feet above the ridge level of a roof on a principal structure with a gable, hip, or gambrel roof and shall not extend higher than ten (10) feet above the surface of a flat roof. Solar energy systems are permitted on accessory structures, only if they are flush mounted and shall be no higher than twelve (12) inches above the roof. Solar panels on principal structures shall be mounted to align with the slope of the roof and shall not deviate more than ten (10) percent from the roof angle of a gable, hip, or gambrel roof. 1011-44 Wayzata, MN Code of Ordinances Page 1 of 1 706.02 - Restrictions on Operation. It shall be a violation of this Chapter for any person to operate a snowmobile under the following circumstances: A. In a manner so as to create loud, unnecessary or unusual noise which disturbs or interferes with the peace and quiet of other persons. B. In a careless, reckless or negligent manner, so as to endanger or be likely to endanger the safety of any person or the property of any other person. C. Between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on any day of the week. D. If the operator is less than 14 years of age, while operating on public streets or property. E. On the private property of another person without that person's specific consent. F. Without a red flag or pennant at least one square foot in size mounted on an antenna at least five feet in height, if operated upon a public street. G. While under the influence of intoxicating liquor, narcotics or drugs. H. On any public property, other than public streets, unless specifically posted. about:blank 1 / 10/2019 Photos of the 10 fire lanes in Shorewood Fire Lane 1: Enchanted Island ==* at the extension of Enchanted Point Fire Lane 2: Shady Island at the extension of Shady Island Road Fire Lane 3: Extension of Grant Lorenz Road at Birch Bluff Road y Fire Lane 4: At extension of Third Street (Between 26100 and 26080 Birch Bluff Road) yF a o d w -, '� ♦ ! kips �, ip '+� � :x tv }t 6 JS a It r !1 � pppyf 5� N t � •'�«n � " � �l ivy • ' i iz 7 i 4 ,r z - - � - �^ _.... Ana „+€ � •, r _ - _ �, r r a Marie Darling From: Susan Anacker <anackerjohnson@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 7, 2019 10:01 AM To: Planning Subject: Comments on Fire Lanes Thanks for addressing the question of fire lanes! I use the fire lane at the end of Grant Lorenz Road. It must be Fire Lane 3. Also FL 6 next to Cresant Beach. I use the fire lane for access to walk, bike, swim, kayak, canoe, ice skate. I'd like to continue to do this. It is part of what makes Shorewood such a great place to live! I don't snowmobile but I believe this is a good use of fire lanes . I was concerned when a new owner took control of the property bordering the firelane. Signs were posted about limiting access for snowmobiles. I was confused as these didn't appear to be City signs but private. (were they? Does the city permit snowmobiles? ) This new neighbor also has much vegetation right on the trail .. I worry his arborvitae will block the trail. It would also help if fire lanes were marked, so we know that it is OK to access the lake at these points. Some are obvious some are not. Thanks for the help! Susan Anacker 26915 Noble Rd 10 January 2019 To: City of Shorewood From: Mark Bongard 26260 Birch Bluff Road Re: Fire Lane Access — Birch Bluff/Grant Lorenz To Whom It May Concern: I am the homeowner directly adjacent to the west of the Birch Bluff and Grant Lorenz Fire Lane. We are a fairly new resident, building the home and moving into that location in August 1017. Prior to acquiring the property, we spoke with the previous homeowner, the real estate agent and the City of Shorewood in person to learn and discuss the Fire Lane. It was expressed to me that it is a non -motorized access point for the public for members of the community to access Lake Minnetonka for Canoeing, paddle boarding, swimming, shore fishing and the like. It was said by all the parties we spoke with that it is quite a quiet and low usage location. And if we experience any abuse by motorized vehicles, we can contact the city or local police and they would work to eliminate the problems. So, we went forward with the purchase of the property TIV411IN It took two years to design and build the current residence. During that time, we had seen and experienced many signs that people were driving motorized vehicles down the fire lane both winter and summer. We chalked it up to the fact no one was living on the property during the construction phase and we made no mind of the activity and made no complaints assuming upon our occupancy, people would take heed and discontinue their inappropriate usage. After moving into the home, to our dismay, the activity did not stop. Since it was late summer and the activity really only occurred during the day, we let it go. Once winter began and the ice was safe, we had a huge increase in usage by motor vehicles: Snowmobiles, ATVs, trucks, jeeps, trailered fish houses and motor cycles with spiked tires. Here in lies the difficulty for us, the usage happens all hours of the day and night. Engines revving, lights flashing into our home. As the winter progressed, the access became rutted and heaved from ice shifts and users would have to use more power to get over the humps or out of the ruts. Our home layout is such that our bedrooms are all on the western end of the property nearest the fire lane. The noise and lights become very loud and bright while you try to sleep. We are awakened several times a night and several nights a week. It has become very annoying and difficult to get restful sleep along with the frustration that individuals know they are using the fire lane inappropriately and without concern as to the impact on our lives. I realize this is a democratic process and all sides must get their time and chance to express their wants and wishes for the use of public property, but in consideration, you should be concerned for those most negatively affected by these types of decisions. For our family, shifting the use from a pedestrian usage to a limited use motorized access point is and will be a hardship for us. Not only will it continue to negatively impact our enjoyment of the lake, but also our health and well-being. Not to mention, it may also have consequence to us on an economic level, should this lane shift to allowing motorized usage, it will likely have repercussions to us in the future marketability and de -valuation of the sale of our property. As for us doing our Due Diligence prior to purchasing, we certainly would not have bought or built a home on this site, and at the very least, we would not have designed the home with sleeping quarters nearest the access knowing what we now have experienced. Thank you for your time and service effort into this matter. Mark Bongard IN 6�a6/ ,z,fs 7 JO lopli la 0 /1 �141`17 le- ii' ��'Yl QlC 4;�IC7 �VOL�J/ A�u ke i/j`61 "z -::) cp-�� 6 &Aaw� (,bue34- aaA . t� wad, LQ mLL or 2ro& get Liu"mow Doz 09 • � 8 m�ozl •r^r�O m � �� .-�'A. � U mN OEZ //gg OZL 09tOP s ,. BK M.SL.LN f 92'BK SOOtl 9E i. 61 BL'LS_ l 6LOCE69 OVA { 3.BZ1b.EE; }3. UMS 9Z'899 MUMS6BN ntn ca rmy % SEL^ v Set lP •Y M Eo rtl n n96'oLZ M.SL.LL.OS ; : 6L'6L 2 mm �11- mm n` PB't05 .� lh L_ 4> tt� a- - J..� J O V W,,n m •n't� L '� _ _ _• LB'9Ll n gyp;.' ......m 1 � e m EE'LEL �P rv'i �,p e Egg. .' n � or �Y m Z m p`O N nIt.�. ggol 'iS -r 9tio n_� v ,t I N � n a� ty. n ti� �`T g5'OO[ ... LS T^ ._ .................!,..,�...................... U bn2 •y 'm+� ........_............;;....... -e„ . , ...DJ , n v m� mN r�,Y c _ Y�.it a m. . ge o - .... `a .... a .. ,.. .. m ,; •.. m n - �yn;.37dV.�W gong gg. ......_ _..� .._ y6 �n tZ, 3 ...a cj:, ry. gg 'Se �a s• m q B tEZ �'at�' a L7 t `' � • , ttY!_1V, 'S J 96'VZ.:'� 6 n o MS4,86.68N: OS Zl'BL s m M.SL, 11.05 � L9'B9 gg SZ'e8L LLI 42 , .................... - - - - - BB'9BL - e� ........... Cam ............. � t� ... p` ` .aN.. 9L'E9Z r^ 9O'9EL M-t , m CJJ ^ L[ s .... ............... .._.......... ......... ....... .......e........ ,......... .... m� ^ n L' m +. V v , S n N SEL,_ SELj _;......_.".._..L9s16COVA 1Y=�Ye'zx :.__'aN0335 A3aNfl �`"w)j e �.- �, mt uh j _ n '. Wed / _ 9L' `_ m n ............ s m _ �, cl _ _ m •" vI G1,. .......P..'............... ..............',......... .......... ....._..........._....... o� m set SEL 1 Y� goe M... o. ... .... ............... \-c .................. 99'8El'; t t m ................p......... _.......� . ' 59'SEL t n , m m ^ n �• U� v 1 ` 99'9EL 59'8EL 'a'S i6'EoE_Q;i _t_ ABQNI _ B'o6L HiaoN zreu /. LL,L B'opL H[NON 99'OEL 'L5ej1'LO :fi9'VOL V. c • mv- � m. se'BEL •:.�' �s ..'•gym= B£t ry ctu __L'U, —� `tom M4 _ aa`�c�3�r..tNs (AaoNn) 02L ZN31l011NV80 W O 1 • 3.LL6r.OS 6L'fBE M. San Z m U C, U . Z �oZ j 0 M 0 m LL p=W CO �o�va O 2 H XZ Z t; CR a � 1 ui V ui Z+ �61 N LM -J o SL'!BL ' E'06L .mot Z nt z Z zB B9l E9' i Z o W • 695>a!ti•9012bn w�n541 r,�5 IN •1 � 3-St. 6o,ZN oL it o_ _—_— i 81 fZF �. — — O i D �to ��p�a �� o. a°' n 59gt \ ----" —��' ram.--' - MSI i0 p5 - O .r ho cy 1__� _. _.-SEI 641 8� D ZO.Z.O! 0 .jl fl'otZ SBZ \ en O i1 P N Q 0 Z N N W u o N is oa Hl v3 mr 5 80 00" Zr In 9 -% ' to `TY 47 • 1 C cli 0- CIJ � d _ ` ___ __- — � ate-• �,^ 9 �+ u aVO8 �Z7L ZN. 9 ter. 5ITN In O o 06 Its co ?LZ 6600$ `J �ti,�b tz gz� , v 04 w s co w tO'ISZ z Exhibit D FIFE LLITI NO. 3 and 4 r�O _ T 6r Grant Lorenz Road and Third Street ' ,v4*w'"1• .' � t! /26.04 �' oor o ;o ti5 •'� El MRIDCI h ° �D !SZ , ..n CIRCIEr '"�a SOISZ - / Esc C7 z_ u1 Q > W z Q O Cl) W D H 0 2 U o co LL U of IL > O tn� g C�w�e ! ZGa zm g .�j3Re� & = o Ld a = w Zp n owm n OOj 51 v 51 T 88L a 101 3o z/L • • 3,LkO0.ON 153M 3H1 30 Vn LSV3 _aonu3xra aza+2 o ar+v a sLoi— T \ -J y� �ee1 N33M139 3NIl b _ _ 's --------o b '1 3 H Bl-OL_l_--- \ — --- �06L--3.8b.SLON 0 v 3 % 7 --- \P\ S 5 3:: 3 ;ti'd � id el i s z z m w � K - a y Z „d N U NN NNNVUi� N m a rc? o a m = Ll a 2 i="z N K Mgr "'�� o, m0 cc33o_ m� ao i N LL�n 3 G 3i 0 y�i mz ago r� o rz a� m zo^ NnF o o•oN o zr '^oNox o u a d Qo z .Pc <03 0 z NWJ ry Wp QDwjlo U 3 Owa iNN Q � ~¢ NZ �� ginNw v IO U 3d VI I/1 3 atG-aee(isal xve nag-o6e(zsa) a+oNd ILSGG NA 'WgA36pN$ 'illl i6 IDUIB OINL 6 i d LASS NII'@'Oil L16 'i1 'W 'ua 'A OOGZ .Q/I �Q ��im 6ae.ing 919OTMIDD y O1x ° o ZN O6 O°` e 6 � kj � P! �. w� Zo �m LLO SNOA3ANnS I SNMNION3 / SMNNrd j0 � R � � g C t e. �A o e am .3Ul `II!H "a satue� asawn � � HOUIH OTE98 a.anl9 o m " �: „ "a g w s_x og° m a oa ZE .m -" 91 .oa�m F gas° '.o�'x ¢ oa 3 �S 30 7mofHz v`,u<az co ° o ° 3o F as a o•oa. oe®a =.00oa a $ .. s V f y�`3mg sN a so 4Qa 1 N .L�1I-- vt ►,v��. .jim RUSSELL 26080 Birch Bluff Road scription: NORTH 75.00 feet of Lot 22, BIRC UFFIUPPER LAKE-;7tNNETONKA: 4� ++ Swale: 1" = 20' o Denotes iron monument x000.o = Existing eleva Bearings are assumed 0RO ¢7 /.�• SK/-," �o, �"�'' S8 vA N66o 1.�� _ - " T SSW r�•' �a-lo ,mil y ,to°trig°'g1 F�""r� pu "� `, -� � is ><,� r1• � yg33� �.,� q3 • ry 266 gU � � lit. CON NAY AMA S • ®• raPO��wE✓.=mac •- 3 -. / oME Sseayi N �\ � � • - R/O!!5E O i z . - L�. f°--' �Z---I 6 f� 75' _ ��---- X937.1 A R� FGj65- ARaarr AMA = 4,�og A rROA Ei: i H 1 fie,�o e, 1 N fc ' a. 3 rt _ � rnl ,-vslt9.9 -Xg37.G Benchmark: Top of manhole intersection Bi Exhibit B N.G.V.D. 1929 adjusted eievati EXISTING SITE PLAN I hereby certify that this is a true and c of a survey of the boundaries of the above/__! 2 S A � ;� �� ► , � mix � � � c � •3; v�oi �p �.t I_ N i.v \M 07Is I �! ►�i�a�l��'pa��.�.�yuo� I I �I cr+ a u u a ��•` o I I NJ I I I }9 • 4•�' I J H ' ' •2'• I UlI I'jai•' 5�� y� 36 RpA9 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR Edward Soner 26100 Birch Bluff Road Shorewood, MN +1 o . Legal Description: f . The east half of Lot 23, BIRCH BLUFF UPPER MINNETONKA- 1 0 3 Q Q t � Nt7 ZbIDCt Z, ENE � r.1 STr✓k'4� j i l-laus� � mf 2 ---►q- U pee N Scale = V = 20' o Denotes iron monument Bearings are assumed "1 a *c I hereby certify that this survey was prepared by me or under my direct supervision And that I am a duly Registered land Surveyor under the lows of the State of Minnesota. Surveyed by me this 21�y 7" t�r, 2010. <j rzf- Herb F. Lemire RLS Minnesota Reg. No.13349 4416 Abbott Ave. N Robbinsdale, MN 55422 Phone: 763.537.0497 } 14 Total )hard Surface Area: 2872 Sq Ft. Total site area = 8772 Sq. Ft. -aV - r Percentage of Hard Surface Area = 32% r Lq [Y ^`� !yam �j ✓.A� cli� 'y{O ^i _ �� •\ gY7i - .s►:N C9 Yi£ ODL Ajn-le H0a18 .» oc� O Cr �+�+. � \ "`� f,,s •,-- ��s �� L 41 S, .��'. ti ter; � � J CD LL LL- \t � •srii a off"` OcL �Z374Z Co to_ 1 V l 11A •.l C'1 '�C •1 .wCD I cl ¢�o� i yaE D21 `� OB o1 CQi sefF 77 IRT— �I .. ,• ('Mru•9•r�%) � h..� :... .. .. vo Q Ati ? C`n,; L O o m N_ Cj Exhibit VAN FIPJ,l LANE No . 55 and 5EI stI Eureka Road and Birch Bluff Road � (crescent Beach � T V Lake Minnetonka Lake Elevation April 25, 1995 = 930.14 929.4 Contour. - 930 r Shoreline Proposed 1Oft. Wide Drainage do Utility Easement. +I u Proposed Division I� Line. 975.4 } I -, 96�° 66.69 30.80- 976.4 x 972.8 Ix 976"3 Barbecue 74.69;ia, � Pip Concrete Pitilding Setback line. Slab 974.8 976.2 x x 97E 74.8 _ _ 33 x 973.6 ED 973.0 x LJ PAROEL75.42 PROPOSED PARCEL 1 Concrete do Rock Walk 9j LLr Concrete �S b Slab Rock/2d.7 Wall h N...: N N > 91 Landscape I - m CO N 0.'7 1.5 L( -- 977.1 r3 • n 660 < .. We119> m c N �p B ® 42 v�• � 5.9 25620 h {� 9 +' SE 919 . Ean USE ,6, o g5 •ri`� � 'Y ' 2,., � •� .�,� 24- Oa �� , � r N pN 5.0 r •• N n 1 N r.r tA1.8 fl�� 91� o ` l• 9 o9e� °t *y d eta t 22.0�y ,,.'i.:-4N >J °9�Ea�> 32 S Qro'R Ft 24.7 9� ,did 973.1 2 73.9 ® 4•g E a 11 . r .r 24' 4 k n 972.9 4u�1+e; - U.sq�a LyA i FF d vl m r P Or FR 33 Benchmark Southeast corner + 24' Oak -77Q of Lot 1-974.73 970.9 U� 57TtphSW / 74.1 ter. ' I 34.51°o / t so o�° IT Oaks mar ` 971.4'at -a4' ® e Spruce(I i ` `^ I >?, *,��'i1. Gc6' Pal PP 2-8970.7 N000�ot,� o -"� A� x Spruce it':.'. °Na. z OJT. 970.4 59�g Centerline of 70.6 8-J m Ave^ 9 18" Oak s' Birch Bluff --� 36• South Line' ',I For it N. >Jq Road Per Of Lot 2. •' 9>J �s r, Record Plats. 3 r, #� ,'gy3t:, Proposed Driveway I r` Aj Edge of Existing Jy Bituminous Roadway ON � • • s 973 2 er --BLUFF ---- °r^ IRCH- ROAD-` ,30 f N �herty µa^ e 9� _ 9�� 2 Lot 53� 0110 Birch B01 �' Addi (Luke kllnneto � *NA N T KIN WE 1�` 17 3 It . -.RCN OW 1� LL Jai 1h3-7-i:4,.N � SM PR £SFMCF Of � I Ili �._.r.. �/^'�"�'{"��-li�,t,�, t�.,t-9 -� R..,.•�4r .� '.i �"'�'lJ .�%li(.•„��,'. w' a..'.te day .fJ�{� �QQli9t- j .vim?• �iii:(-. 0 2 Scale: 1" = 50' Date 12 - 23 86 0 Iron marker found o Iron marker set o- N EAST LINE OF - WEST '60'OT LOT 1, GRANT VILLE EAST LINE OF-- WiST 100' OF LOT 1, GRANTVILLE PROPOSED LOT DIVISION FOR NANCY MARSHALL 7 rt°' can IN LOT 1, GRANTVILLE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 6LI I Alper+i h�G�� EX 151>Ni. F� �A CA61N I, LOTTI, RA14T- ARVILLEEA=247865ncr.: � 33 (E.(UDIN(a 1 EASEMENT) =0:57ACQF 'kR n I 04 I N 6 IN sD i i ROAD I / EASEMENT. V \S�\Nb i I o- D.t e� � � 1 I ' / N sly' f✓, a ? I 4 I � R �1�P1�pPoSFO `E115TIN4 i DIV.E ' ea SKFO UNE, I m /\d --LINE PLINE OF LOT IA 11 _ WEST LINE OF LOT 1, GRANTVILLE I AREA •-ZOO74 Q f E-D1Nb EASRWL11Ti - - - 1'- 4 = 0. 41. A[10ES - 'I n I T-- SovT H LINE OF I I LOT 1, GRANTVILLE- I 33 a � I 91.0 7 to 3.33 z L L) v W a Wj G7 33 F c p re re 33 Is BIRCH BLUFF ROAD I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State Of Minnesota. r COFFIN & GRONBERG, INC. � �- 'j Mark S. Gronberg Reg No.12755 Engineers and Land Surveyors Long Lake, Minnesota e-� .L ,4� , r rip r i �'•. ,WaJ I » , n m - ; �.a ,r.ar/1V-- - f2D.g!.a a �•... m,a m -- w YVIIE 40 .1 a a, (43) - g: 4w' :,y (30)'i i (32 as. 6r - F. .•:�s (21) a " (27> a 255:>,�, o"Jxa,R l S, ryO o .":E• (30> - ,n (zi) -`` g ,m („5) uta6 _ (27) s.s R 5//� (38) x (2g) R (29) (8) 2- (33) m `� xiaa 8 ` P HILL 5 (23) /� :, i' (t3)• ,ogRa tJ sa... `z '\.p 126) MM (14) �^ _ 1\ e^ ' ^^° ro9x tz6 5 • .... _.'—'. Q .�".q:50ii. � `° dF (39) = tzs qp(54) .^, , /�// �0n \/ y .. 66B8T}C ✓ri/EIGH (37) (52) zn° °� (40) (32) ;1 (33) •9'(46) -A IN ry ,t'(4tr 7u 8 w �'ts, oe 'v> I� .• ,o _ ` 6> .O0<0' ,40 C OF DEE RAVEN ze?s :.•x �9-anzE v,n M_t6'SB,. •'' w.,e%`.•J N08t - 1 w, OF DEEPHAVEN _ i (47) to_[� ' ( •' � zzasa �[ ��P'[E qq.6 C1TY OF,SH REWOOO - ' °'E (1 A� ssaar ... .... t) 69 • t) �� i , Boi sx R,- '• wCFah` e°t?' _.. .. 699.2Ctf'9g B U, O�5),,: x _ -emu _ (77 F� ._„p... & -•• _._ vn66t 16 2tJA, we50TJ x [. O Z �9w.,•{ t.°e J -'B VO w•ai °• e, ssm(7t)d ra _ c a TL 2 n . (60) i OQ rl J pOOy .pules s9ea9 .sss`s _ (46, & 6 _ a (70 _ (59) v / ?��° �(zz) PART OF ) (20) ,�( Q �°�-i - �9e3. • i (20) .�,.. vt• a rF • c ' ms 9s (69) LINWOOD PARK\ )' ya]° • - L •. (44) VACATED (3)®(23) ' S �WC.'y'+� ; N,es a�e•E ,so m4,'.x>,P o t? M1,y ° _ ,{" \ - � e M1:° � , °j ,b. ° Pn � •,JJS � xSBR< aN•Sb58`E x5x] as (4) - ' � wB ` �\ ° �� •'' („) '' (58) IN, ,w (a2)'O ''L}. � e ,t (24) N ib b (12) \° (59) �• i (41) •$, `�R (26)g, ,(6) °' asss u^'G' n , zie. i - (57)I63I mz 42) USO N0141 D" (i6) (19) /!5•. 3 R i�'T A.[s SOD +J !l � • r 7 /' 15 ' o� �ja 8 „e`-^` °s _ _ ''' °Brs 4,00 ':axe.ea`- `' , $ � "* ro ) ) (14) ••. .' '•'3' /�'_ t4�s (1t) e - u°1 > i R(64) 8, N •,� (17) 1` ti n .p v • (277 1 P6''a (38) �1 •(i)p' (72) a .' ! / (37) I .4 _ (26)a •! (36).` i a �b•P 8) cs:r:a-e ,r w:4,•yi � 1,_✓,.... ,9roa ' so- $ 'Fb(6' (2e '. 9) `� (14) r," •° '.;,P lt6) '-','<1 °x ti $ .m• 9t „ " 'sz'zs•w t 5R FE�.� �!OFT 130 . :'; � `'ti a 9] - 4 a 1 c l AI�ESSURY ' S;e°i .'-'- (1i) y > _ � 8 :a ,p 9 '• ,� _t ..t x S 'F9' ° ) (66) ,i s^e (50) _ (51) 8 (73) ^ (53) �5� 141 _ c _ R •, FERNCROF-P-D �'� (66) (•�?�:. �I .',° Vz; 4 �IUNOEhRUSTIC WAY, '�A 8 -•3, 'p �e a9a xzie2o- R (66) [ x I z(29y.. 2 (18). �T ' . (%4 fP'�€llF ., a e icy :az.. q•a° :b u i R I66) € 8 " N:n.a '6 S+ so. a x +s• a. (76) , ` a �(75) /.��l R.. a (fig) ��a3 (57) S w l9) R ii9x O mz9 s' : ; 2as a (712) {-- ° ai,lq° '°i 3 i + < --- ' a,a ;m "(72) (787 URe9 �•' �77)gfUNDEV 5,�\ M1� "a •T� (71)a ;�R Ooj a is a-isr-• �w•'qO fiV : ...a,.°< °O , m 9 `' `,g!•- "` - "� (21) 1Z,02ND ®IfsZpK (79) 7LLli (20) //..�� of 4r r^ �`y _ -- Z �( a. r _P ° a' ^' � ' "ia •�;. 90JP (�)� e° R(1II034] R (10g $ - : F (s 7)'$ i26) a Y (21j 8 �• _ ..--°4 (25) R\ 64 :9)ax a 'lm R(to3)'.. .R (106) x a T25S _123)122 r$ l24) .y°� _ 32a72 rJ SB'E (63) .O 'O CRESTWOOD F• .''Jl'' P 1108) (8 z —. _._ __ _ v -36 ve) a az . s (36 x(32) (39 I) (62) x ,m J (78 (10) O".. 8. , 5 _ •-' u a"s4 . o s x w ? (33) Sao '- . •rs .fix (7) r (96) e 8 II ,so ro 79 4 oe• 4 R ), ..•Jara� _ g so ' :& ��, (40 (g5j .s _.. +a z -- )• „ az 'Ap (4d� � a, - �� 2 f 2) (. 7`qQR��l�ul1°'1- R o ) tl zs .Z (52) a^'u - (46, ° 14 a ) �tA, (4(46,° )5,) - m(48sa( 43)'sR. ?(� 4''1)q•^'O q. T to,o)�RDIt:oc`R')- a,Sp ' n9 - S 44 R FOx6Rx(4S 1 Q 42853.6 ar on cl (50)D7 o" 9) ^) p%wx Lr ci . t9=,(�7.,4 o v(�sSss'u-ab"D'sN —> � n.t.:._R._ .I - '-G_•g °- _¢."�' _ a'' '',`a9\s) °�.^a'°o°� q00�-�''-zsy, i°pj s•uir•y°t� ' zPro .' b g„-° Z. 1)__a %�{_+ �S l I aBt3as n:ec•aJzsoa"e„e tno.st '�`+g ,_t_z,' r"(—so)•y_ 2 i _ w saayey 270 M1w Q(7P. 0 2(61) 16 48) (27)° (46) (45)�;) (48) (55) ^ I' $-K)NGS= CT145 ,x= �6 F ' \ o 6) _ ...I - I53) .,6yy a• Joy Y :y^^�� 1,5) `� - we)~� ,a'a7) �v-�� _ - ( ) a'c2�7� _ �� _ �e°'�• ,'' ..R_zoznx 3j z.s� - � la)�4a5Td20C° L�d�'D j rn.., ' 125),� (13) s x(12) 2 w _5 j52�,2nr4�'i I m(50) ° Frt R4) � --------"-F- ,x9 a•, 4j �ro \� •o-< s„ 7�9; .�`. (501 J o Y 4 O = a a I r ° ,• rtR `[�f y (i4) �_ ,s � (a91 :$`°!5').1,a ? p tzar _. I �. *" .°°�'�'. I 9z5 -X 0 Denotes Iron Monument X000.0 Denotes Existing Elevation 1000.01 Denotes Proposed Elevation "a Denotes Direction of Surface Drainage EA5T 1956 0� �PT<c Proposed Top of Foundation Elevation; Proposed Garage Floor Elevation = 9si .o Proposed Lowest Floor Elevation = -145 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of: Lot 3, Block 1, FERNCROI-T, Hennepin County, Minnesota. And of the location of all buildings, if any :thereon, and all visble encroachments, if any, from or on said land. As surv-eyed b� me this 8th day of December_1987. J Thomas S. Bergquist 1 > Registered Land Surv4yor r Minnesota Lic.. No. 7725 'lee ' �l g e 4 tw 9 - - 00 I / � 94ZJ i 1 Sri 41tf . x9sa z— I \6 X 949.3 \'h' '°-9tt JG,Oq EAST- - - Rev. 2-l686 chAt*ED f6E. BJC. _ 57.8&-, EA5T j : j;E CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY W V SATHRE-BERGOUIST, INC. soor for i 106 SOUTH BROADWAY • WAYZATA. MN 55391 C04 FILE Ho: TELEPHONEl12.475SWEDLUND HOMES, INC. .6000 �Ot,_ T q �1 a n ^ I I I I I •Z P'� K V b a U O I Q a a o^ u'• I I ri v a p ooZ Z Z. No co LO I Z N cD Ro I a zo I 00� dw c N� w aS O �- I Ci � I YU O O� EE N N N O' O' p- C C x� N N N� J¢i; ip I mU O1 OO U roOD�O>Na E E v av?rn^uo D V N N I S N U C C O N W m o N V L o o c •N O II II II N I I I p p �p, it 11 II N C W cccc I C oO I JS(t 00O O,E o V O I I U zz 001 < I I iraoL U O In w w z LJ W \ z `<b o � dam\ �-+ � _-+ -i Mid �•l► _ 1�;. cr q . � by `6 C7 Ho _+ L _ I 1 I I i FERNCROFT DRNE R a, _ L O� O L O ^ C C O O T z O•- O N N��01 C E N C W U w a � N C p TJ O O U 'o O) TE aDi o O a 0 C N W N C Q) U 7 •U L J L ~ . a v p o m O maE N 6i L u N 0� v I Certificate of Survey i4D I Jim Sedesky 21040 Ivy Lane -' Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 "Z_) L17 q -7W73 \9j CM�r�y`r #� TO / s66�j��egsz Ne 10�tl�Py1 14 � 1 CO 14id 7� I OV•�� 0 9z�, ��ttff\T) 41) C) 15 L` i � `s f is ,. gyp• nr ry •� 9�'tffgS +s.i hwth // 14' + a' $ -7 lie of Col+ - L Of Lot �r� >�4 �-Sou � !!lie 16 V "'�+ � `� 1OCOO4pOp ++ /1`' �'.yn'of�..�ao (��nVJ NORM -Sou oornthepatehy 'V o/ tot is ^ m SC�T I gat PROPERTY DESCRIPTION (AS PROVIDED BY CLIENT) That part of Lots 14, 15 and 16, lying westerly of the follo ing described I LEGEND line: . Iron monument found Beginning of a point on the south line of Lot 16, 35 feet westerly from the a Iron monument set and marked southeasterly comer of said Lot 16; thence north and paral el to the with license No. 23968. easterly line of Lot 16 to the north line of Lot 16; thence ortheosterly to a point on the easterly line of Lot 14, distant 140.6 feet north of the southeast corner of said Lot 14. all in Block 7, MINNETONKl MANOR, excluding any accretions thereto according to the plot ther�pf on file or of BOOK 638 PACE 37 record in the office of the Register of deeds in and for so! County, Drawing Fie: 03-0778-718.DWG Hennepin, Minnesota. Project No. 2003-778-L Subject to easements of record, if any. Duluth, MN I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by Ham lake, MN me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Hibbing, MN Land ;S;ve��rder the laws f the State of Minnesota. 77 T Minnetonka, MN�j� Phone: (952 933-0972 December 12. 20-3 ICCict�31'o LTD Fax: (952 933-1153 www.rlk-kuusiato.com Kurt�M. Kisch, MN License No. 23968 Dote �yyl/ Revised 1-05-04: Proposed Deck 6110 Blue Circle Dr.. Suite /100• Minnetonka, MN .55343 k FL'C T LAKE WAY � eq. TERRACE tia Rz S040 M B D + w 10 C:W p C1 A I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of: LOT 13, BLOCK 1, TONKAWOOD ESTATES Hennepin County, Minnesota And of the location of all buildings, if any, encroachments, if any, from or on said land. As surveyed by me this 13th day of August,�1987. thereon, and all visible Registered Land Surveyor, MN Lic. No. 7725 E'� CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY SATHRE-BERGOUIST, INC. w0K for 106SOUTH BROADWAY • WAYZATA, MN33391 &45 CHERYL EHRREICH TELEPHONE612.4754000 2-34rl- i � 411 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR: 3tH Hendrickson Ce�o/ descr1,C11i017: lat /4, B/ock /, Ton*awood Esfoles , Hennepin CO. IM17,7es0fo LAKE'�.4Y TE.P.P.4lE 0 akh 99, 45i' /¢OOP �j_'� _ �voofrMefs) m SC/A/SS-r ZXA16- d C'enteP-/:ne P denotes 1o%t diSfOnCe 695 denotes ineosvreo' dstonce I I • denotes iron found ' o denotes iron set 1 hereby certify that this survey, prepared by me or under my direct super- vision, is a true and correct representation of the boundaries of the above T,HanSen described land and of the location of all buildings, if any thereon, and all Q_ visible encroachments, if any, from or on said land and that I am a duly (J� registered land surveyor under State of Minnesota Statutes Section 326.02 I Pellinen, m. to 326.16. / consulting Engineers — Land Surveyors — Site Planners 7408 Mitchell Rd., Eden Prairie, Mn. 55344 934-6163 13007 Spring Lake Rd., Mtinn"toll a, Mn. 56343 938-5678 Date: � � — Registration No. G Z 7 ¢ Job No. 83-077 gook - Page 16-71 Scale t 11-30` f� r71/c CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY.'' FOR NAGELL CONST LAKE wILLIAIA L 41,TrM4 SMe,e « . P \ {I 'Ov _I «tL 9p Jr /C 9 r \ VO Cf R �( rwo `Aq 4 I G0 KIM A. REAUME BOOK PAGE P- 8 49 R0"11111,111111,\ REGISTERED C LAND SURVEYOR PROJECT NO. SHEET 9104&r— SURVEYS 612-542-9559 REVISIONS INC. --1 413 HOPKINS CROSSROAD N 1 MINNETONKA, MINNESOTA 1 55343 SFITF OOPY LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lots 1, 2and 3, Block 6 MINNETONKA MANOR, accordin to the recorded plat there f, Hennepin County, Minnesota • DENOTES IRON FOUND • DENOTES IRON SET z §GALE: 1 "=40' I HEREBY CERTT F'i THaT P-NN, OR REPORT 'n'AS ?REFAFF7 P' "E OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPER':IS.n ANC THAT I AM A DULY REGISTERED LA D SURVEYOR UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. DATE 88,-91-91 REG. NO. 19922 FL I0 4M